“Smackdown” with Frank Gehry

By on | 117 Comments

The popular real estate and urbanism blog Curbed created this image for its summary of the emerging conversation.The popular real estate and urbanism blog Curbed created this image to describe the ongoing debate (Photo credit: Curbed LA)

This year’ Aspen Ideas Festival lived up to its name with a lively exchange about Placemaking vs. the iconic architecture of Frank Gehry and other “starchitects”. But not in the way anyone expected.

When PPS president Fred Kent, a speaker at the Festival two years ago, posed a question to Gehry in the Q-and-A following Gehry’s presentation, the world-famous architect refused to answer.

When Kent repeated the question about why iconic architecture so often fails to create good public places, Gehry called him “pompous” and waved his hand in a gesture that eminent political journalist James Fallows described as “a dismissive gesture, much as Louis XIV might have used to wave away some offending underling.” Fallows described the scene in his influential blog for The Atlantic.

And Fallows’ blog became the place where ideas about what constitutes great architecture were debated. This was because Gehry refused to engage in discussion about his work, even at an event billed as a Festival of Ideas.

Frank Gehry brushing aside Fred Kent and his question, as moderator Tom Pritzker (responsible for the Pritzker Prize) looks on.

Gehry responded first in the blog, explaining that he didn’t really want to be at the Festival and that at age 80, he gets “freaked out by petty annoyances.” He also charged that Kent (who remained unnamed in Fallows’ first two blogs and Gehry’s response) was “intent on getting himself a pulpit” and “marketing himself at everyone’s expenses.”

Kent responded in Fallows blog on Friday, writing, “That Gehry was dismissive of the subject itself and so self important in his response shows just how far removed he and other proponents of ‘iconic-for-iconic-sake’ architecture are from the reality of urban life today.

“Around the world citizens are defining their future by focusing on their city’s civic assets, authentic qualities and compelling destinations,” Kent continued, “not on blindly following the latest international fads conjured by starchitects.”

But what’s most interesting here is not the heated exchange of opinions following a controversial appearance by the most famous architect of our time. It is the wide scope of debate that has been stirred.

David Sucher took up the issue in several postings on his City Comforts blog.

Frank Gehry has been quoted saying "I do not do context", amounting to barren public spaces and a limited scope of responsibility for the architecture profession.

And Fallows himself—probably as famous in news journalism circles as Gehry is in architectural ones—seems fascinated by all the energy sparked by this question about how to create great public places.

On Friday he began his blog with a sense of amazement, “I used to think that a topic like — oh, let’s see, US-China friction — was controversial, or climate change, or Google-v-Microsoft, or McNamara-v-Rumsfeld. That was before I innocently stepped into the crossfire concerning the effect of “star-chitects” like Frank Gehry on the urban landscape.”

Whatever else comes out of this lively discussion, I think it shows that discussions about how we create congenial public places where people can come together is a major issue of our times.

Public space is not just an aesthetic detail, or minor sideshow for the design community.  It’s central to the fabric of lives and future of our society.  Which is why it’s no surprise that opinions on the subject are so strong.

The public space on the waterfront of Bilbao in front of Gehry's building is a site of frequent muggings as a result of the limited reasons to be there.

The public space on the waterfront of Bilbao in front of Gehry's building is a site of frequent muggings as a result of the limited reasons for people to be there.

Related:

PPS Commentary–Guggenheim Museum Bilbao

Curbed LA–Frank Gehry Smackdown: Iconic Architecture vs. Public Space

Apsen Ideas Festival–Full Video of Gehry Talk (Kent/Gehry conversation at approx. 54 minute mark)

Tagged with → • • • •  

Keep your finger on the pulse–sign up for Placemaking News today! subscribe

← Older Comments
  • wenfa

    just share a comment from an elderly bilbao residents when i was in Bilbao visiting bilbao museum, of course. the old lady approached me as i was standing outside admiring it from across the river. she told me when it was just completed she did not like it but after a while she says she begins to like it. As a public place,i believe it will get there, give it a bit of time like new house and places. it is a new beginning for Bilbao compared to the old Bilbao urban fabric. it needs to be built and layered upon. a wonderful centre. Bilbao is not barcelona you are not going to get that sort of ‘buzzy’ public life even in the old Bilbao, expectation must be realistic.

  • http://www.cityrepair.org Mark Lakeman

    Fred,

    Thanks for asking such an important question, and also for framing the question with enough context for Frank to be able to fully respond. He could have answered the question in any number of ways. It’s too bad that he chose not to engage. It would have made for some interesting discussion later.

    Please keep up your excellent work, and for helping to provide this venue for us.

    Mark
    City Repair

  • http://www.landscape.calpoly.edu/people/eevangel.html Vangeli Evangelopoulos, PhD

    Yes, this was a very interesting encounter at the Aspen Ideas Festival. I read the incident on the PPS site, Fallows’ Atlantic article and the ‘City Comforts’ blog.

    It’s really impressive to see Ghery’s architecture. I mean, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is definitely a very intricate, impressive, spatially imposing, elegant in its own way, with a very special relationship to the sky and water structure. For Ghery to achieve a balance in the aesthetics of so many forms and combine them in an aesthetically harmonious way is an achievement he is obviously proud of. The same I think regarding the rest of his buildings.

    There is an aesthetic Ghery goes for and his deep knowledge of architecture and the deliverance of this aesthetic is definitely pronounced and vividly exhibited in his intricate and unusual sculptural creations of buildings.

    Do we need this architectural elaboration as a society? Why not? It’s something not only to admire but also a source of richness and pride in our daily life.

    So far so good. There are of course different questions someone can ask about the contributions of such architecture and every question can approach the subject from a different facet. At the same time, every such facet can represent different dimensions an architectural structure could possibly acquire.

    I believe Ghery was being asked a simple question: how can his buildings include this other dimension, called ‘a good public space’ or else how can his creations contribute more to the public life in the open spaces around them. Is what’s there enough? Is this new dimension, called ‘effective public space,’ useful for Ghery’s buildings and the city they reside?

    Much of the talk in the articles and the blogs I read was about who is arrogant and who is not, who is classy or not or whether Ghery’s ‘hauteur’ fit within his brilliance. Some of the blogs though, focused on the issue, the simple fact that Ghery left the question unanswered.

    So with all do respect I will ask Ghery myself: why not incorporate this new dimension into the buildings, or why would you think it is unnecessary if so. Ghery, you are a very exceptional architect and figure of our era and we need your opinion on the issue. Why not elaborate and discuss the importance of creating an effective public space around iconic buildings?

  • Edwin Barcia

    What a pity that an opportunity for productive discussion on the topic of iconic architecture and public space was lost to the audience (and to us) just because the personalities involved had something to prove to each other.

    Public space may be viewed as the “sala” or salon where our lives unfold. And as in any living room wall, an accent may add interest to that space, but it can only be part of the larger whole, and never greater than it. Iconic architecture serves basically as “accent” to those spaces where people congregate. No matter how breath taking it may be (as in Gehry’s works for instance), it still must be subservient to some public space – whether it be a plaza mayor, square or sidewalk. The setting lends it its character and importance. The greater the setting, the more important then is its relevance to the community. But in the end it serves only still, as the ever changing backdrop to public and personal events, and not directly as the main space where these may take place.

  • Charles Latini

    I agree with Mr Evangelopoulos and Barcia… The opportunity for discussion was lost a bit, but alas, can be found again. Disclosure, I am an Urban Planner.

    Context– it is what many architects miss in the focus of the structure itself and what seems to be the inherent need to set one’s SELF apart from other designers. Architectural detail– is what many urban planners fail to convey as important within their socialistic mindsets.

    The importance of focusing on the building itself is not in dispute, but the interface and relationships of that building to the humans along side it is more important. The fact that someone can be called a visionary that dismisses what I believe is a critical piece of every project — the architecture of the public space that the (would be) iconic structure sets within is questionable but unimportant in this discussion. The true questions is; how can we, as planners and architects, come together to influence each other that both structure and context are important components of a quality environment. These territorial “markings” that each of our own perspectives is more important than the others has to go (including engineers). The people our work serves is of utmost importance and life so dynamic that it truly takes all of perspectives to make it work!

    Join the discussion Mr Gehry and use your influence to help us bridge these divides…

  • http://urbandesign.pro Irving D. Zeiner

    I was glad this exchange provoked Mike Dobbins to chime in (Aug 30) with his synthesis of the dialectic which has sharpened, not only thanks to Kent and Gehry, but also thanks to the collapse of the financial market for trophy architecture. The coincidence of this economic “context” with Wiley’s publication this year of Dobbins’ URBAN DESIGN AND PEOPLE could (repeat, could) provide a turning point.

    My fear, however, is that as celebrity and wannabe celebrity architecture firms scramble to survive by sniffing out and scooping up the public projects, we’ll see more celebrity dictated urban design disasters than Dobbins’ style “citizen guided” urban design successes.

    I also suspect that what we are discussing here — the dialectic between the 5% of buildings Gehry deems “architecture” and Dobbins’ “civic environment” which the “architecture” complements or embarrasses — does, for better or worse, have as much to do with personality as economics. or perhaps more aptly said, one’s personal values and practice vis a vis the economy. Some years ago after watching Dobbins interact with a neighborhood group, I described him as “a pencil in the hands of the people.” This takes an architect with a personality vis a vis economics different from one said to design by crumpling a piece of paper and hiring structural engineers to “make it so.”

  • Pingback: Netsol Blogs » Blog Archive » Smackdown with Frank Gehry

  • Pingback: Buildings New York Wants and Doesn’t « Straßgefühl

  • dick g

    I used to love Frank Gehry’s stuff even emulated his studio when I was in the A&E business in the 1980′s- Loyala Law, his house, great out of the box thinking- then I saw the Seattle abortion- CAD privilege gone wild- we don’t need to use the stretch command as a design fix on the Parthenon or whatever, reminded me of the Zomeworks weather balloon homes where if you wanted a bigger living room you just pumped in a few thousand cubic feet more—I am glad to hear you called him on it, or at least are asking the question “How important is it to be radical in your abandonment of traditional design-”. Not to forget his use of ridiculously expensive materials and difficult to impossible to maintain buildings- titanium ear rings for a building? And someone should call him on his comment in his interview movie for making a sexist comment on a model as being “looking to flat, like Alice-” as the probable Alice walked by…. ahhhh the benefits of starchitecture

  • http://www.transpolisglobal.com Phil Allsopp, RIBA, FRSA

    Sorry to see in writing some bickering over who is more pompous than others. Reminds me of too many conferences I’ve spoken at and attended.

    Fact of the matter is that we have an enormous and highly complex set of public policy, legislative and regulatory problems that have created the urban and suburban mess that a couple of hundred million of us are having to live in and with. The effect of our nation swallowing hook line and sinker Detroit’s vision of the American Dream has precipitated a 50 year profits-at-all-costs construction binge by developers and so-called “builders” who have smeared poorly constructed fake Tuscany suburban sprawl across our landscapes with no regard at all to the patterns and needs of people and the natural world that sprawl impacts so directly.

    The cultural, social and economic blight that such development have so ably supported is what we are now having to deal with. And its going to take a couple of generations to fix. During that time, our universities and the professions involved in the environments we inhabit (natural and man-made) have got to do a far better job of educating new generations who need to be skilled in depth in many different disciplines. The idea that architects only “do buildings” or geographers only “do cultural landscapes” or urban planners only know how to draw on maps is ridiculous today and will be ever more so in the coming years. Additionally, we have got to move toward a far stronger evidence-basis for design and planning decisions. The social, cultural, economic, and criminal justice implications of design and infrastructure planning decisions (transit, open and public spaces, buildings, retrofits etc.) are significant and are measurable. Consequently, skills in systems thinking and system dynamics will become even more important than they are perceived to be today.

    The one benefit of the recession is that it is forcing a wide range of people and disciplines to consider what on earth we were thinking over the past 50 years. I’m also hopng that the bizarre and unproductive days of the “starchitect” are waning as they have generally not been able to demonstrate how their work directly benefits the environments in which they exist. I’ve heard about the “Bilbao Effect” of placing the Guggenheim Museum in what was once a blighted and dangerous docklands area. My sense though is that it took far more than just the building to create the economic effects that Bilbao now enjoys.

  • Rick Livingston

    I’m finding this discussion extremely interesting, but I’d intended to stay out of it, until I received the recent PPS mailing, which led off with this comment:

    “the arts are and always have been driven to a large degree by more or less conscious desire of the elite to differentiate itself from the masses. With the industrial and educational revolution in the beginning of the last century, classical art lost its differentiating power, because it became available to the masses. The replacement of principles of harmony and beauty with obscurity and conceptual code was the only mechanism to restore the differentiating function of the arts.”

    This is a great statement of a pretty common argument: great because it highlights a contradiction that could be a source of productive insight, if acknowledged.

    The contradiction? The classical arts–honoring “principles of harmony and beauty”–are the products of a frankly class-differentiated society, driven by an explicit desire to distinguish the elite from the masses. Do we, therefore, think less of them? Does the will to distinction compromise their beauty?

    If you say yes, you are a good democrat: quality is the enemy of equality. You can take your stand with the revolutionaries of 1793 who would have torn down the towers of Notre Dame.

    If you say no, what’s your problem with the desire for distinction? Obscurity and conceptual code are symptoms of a desire for distinction in a democratic age, when all judgments of quality are under suspicion of harboring snobbery, being vehicles of elitism. Rampant anti-elitism discounts judgment, avoids serious argument about aesthetics, and paradoxically encourages artists to ignore the public.

    So let’s be careful when we claim to speak against elites in the name of the public: aren’t we just preferring one elitism to another? A spurious populism is no substitute for serious argument.

  • Pingback: האנטי-אורבניזם של פרנק גרי | הרחובות שלנו

  • http://gooshdaniel.net Dan Gat

    I often thought about showing people (but not architects) two photos side by side, that of the New York and that of the Bilbao Gugenheim, both from a distance of say 30 meters, and asking them to state their prefernce. I know what mine is.

  • GV

    Successful outdoor spaces will only be achieved when Architects acknowledge Landscape Architects!

  • Komal Parvez

    Todays Iconic architecture is sculpture,that says ‘look at me’ dont use me!landscape around these structures is cold and bare so that it does not interfere in its viewing.Its egoistic, that’s what Architects are and that’s what clients are too !

  • upssolder

    Amen GV!

  • Pingback: Maverick Architect Proposes Radical Idea: Cars Without Drivers - Eco-nomics - Stories from the Mother Nature Network - Forbes

← Older Comments