“Smackdown” with Frank Gehry

By Craig Raphael on Jul 13, 2009 | 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.

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)

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

Joanna

To all of you attending the “Aspen Ideas Festival”, you might want to re-adjust your reality. Who is calling the “starchitect” pompous? You all reek of pompousness by the very nature of your forum – Aspen?! Yeah, cities shouldn’t waste tax payer money on architectual jerk offs like Geary, but then again, maybe next year you can save the money you spent on your Aspen boondoggle and just debate this nonsense on-line like the rest of us. And as for Geary himself: Dude, leave the talking head circuit if you can’t take the heat!
Larry

Perhaps you should learn how to spell before trashing Frank Gehry.

Fred Kent is as pompous as you they come…the non-designer designer. Just take a look back in time at the old school “starchitects” and you can’t dispute visionaries…let go of the benign notion of contextualism and all of the rhetoric it brings with it.
http://www.9thavenuerenaissance.com Christine Berthet

Fred good for you …
The architect entire focus is the building, the placemaker focus is the people
breathtaking architecture cannot be conducive to conversations. Literally.
the architect’s client is the builing’s owner and its residents , not the public, inside instead of outside. A building is to enclose , a place is to expose.
Generally there is not one name for the designer of a place … It is a layered experience over time ..
And then there are the models, still a major selling tool for architects, a tool that should be banned: it delivers beautiful buildings when viewed from an altitude of 1,000 ft. Let’s hope that virtual reality technology will be adopted rapidly by the industry and will finally chage the way buildigns are envisionned athe street level.
mc

are you serious?
Richard Mitchell

Well . . . . Kent is pompous. It took him nearly two minutes to ask a question you summarized in one sentence here. But, Kent is also right. Gehry has often ignored opportunities to apply his software to sites and interiors. And he must have gone to the beach that day they talked about context when he was in school.
Chris

What a waste of time. What is PPS after here? Relevance? Attention? Why challenge a man like this. You only make yourself look the fool. Why be a jerk?
Erfling

This is a valid question. Gehry is not the person to ask. His niche, whether novelty or timeless, has helped in his success. He has helped us question tradition but , like most “starchitects” he deals mostly in the design of objects in space – no context. Most modernists of the last century flipped a bird towards the urban fabric, so this is not a new problem. The problem I see is students also turning their back on a cohesive fabric and designing sculpture, not architecture.
Wendy Burton

Placemaking needs friends, not enemies. Kent’s question should have been directed (tactfully) to the people who commissioned his work and neglected to include placemaking as a deliverable.
Johnny Ramone

Frank Gehry sucks, his death will be celebrated.
Tony Carrasco

As to the simple question that Fred Kent asked, I would have answered that starchitects iconic buildings could enhance Public Space as long as the Public Space is designed by someone who understands the dimensions of those places and their uses and the starchitect understands the relationship of his building to the public place. The collaboration of Urban Designer and starchitect could produce a great result.
If FG was the starchitect, I doubt there would be collaboration.
http://drydendesign.net Victoria

This invites the conversation on “Architecture as Art” and where the fine line is between beautiful, meaningful and functional buildings placed thoughtfully within a city-scape and (sometimes) large pieces of sculptural architecture (or architectural sculpture?) that stand alone – beautiful, not necessarily functional within the city-scape, yet ART. Gehry is an artist. He has built amazing buildings in his long career. At his age, and level of impatience, perhaps he will decline the next offer for a debate and simply stick with presentations of his thoughts, ideas and incredible body of work.
eric

i wasn’t at the aspen event to see what happened but maybe the brush-off has something to do with the annoying formulas that groups like PPS use to create “successful” public places. Obviously there’s a faith among “starchitects” and anyone else with an ounce of creativity that successul public places require originality and inventiveness to balance an understanding of history. It’s not clear to me whether Fred Kent used the word “starchitects” or “iconic” in his question but why pose these at odds with public space?! Seems unnecessarily provocative considering how many amazing contemporary public spaces we owe to designers of international reputation.
Greg Davis

An architectural work can be judged on many levels. I understand Gehry’s opinion… he creates amazing buildings (even though the style seems no longer innovative). This is something city planners need to realize. Put the expectation on architects to create or enhance public spaces and discuss how that can be done. If they can’t achieve that, then they should not be hired. No one is above that expectation. All in all, I believe the Disney Theater is a failure in Los Angeles. It’s quite a complex, but when you factor in the degeneration of urban renewal, I’d say it’s a net negative. Don’t blame Gehry, though. He did what he was contracted to do. Blame the city planners for looking at that design and saying that the public spaces were even remotely acceptable.
http://www.transpolisglobal.com Phil Allsopp, RIBA, FRSA

The navel-gazing and self-congratulating the architecture profession has engaged in for the past three decades is an amazing story of arrogance. It is also, I would suggest, an abrogation of professional responsibility to the world at large when a building’s “fashion statement” is hailed as more important than how the building measurably improves the overall urban, social, cultural and environmental characteristics of the world ordinary people have to deal with.

The systemic consequences of design decisions regarding buildings and public and private spaces they create remain poorly understood. I hope that these debates encourage Schools of Architecture to place a great deal more emphasis on developing the quantitative skills sets (e.g. system dynamics, scientific research and engineering know-how) that are required for developing an evidence basis for design and planning decisions.

Couple those basic quantitative skills with innate design flair and talent of those on the road to becoming an architect, and then we might begin to see many more urban design and building design projects that actually work.
http://liahonasecurity.com Greg Perkins

It’s impossible to create safer cities without design professionals designing with relationships in mind. Relationships to adjacencies, neighbourhoods and a 4-6 block radius. There are many situations where buildings are built in our cities where the architect has never been to the city or the site they are building on. Structures that have no relationship to their immediate surroundings are disregarded by the people who live and work around them. The very people we want to take partial ownership of and defend the building when the owner is not around.

Iconic structures that do not take context into account become anonymous around their exteriors; especially after business hours and this void can be taken up by less desirable activities and even offenders.

It’s the city that has absolute control over how they are developed and designed and responsibility should start there for holding design and development accountable. It should also seek to involve the immediate community at the design table as a valued partner instead of just going through the motions of holding the required community meetings to satisfy a building ordinance or by-law.

We do know how to design better and safer without limiting creative process. It should be a collaborative effort and not done in isolation.
Mary

Usually it takes a few messages before a comment forum devolves into name-calling vitriol, so congratulations Joanna for getting us there so fast!

Architecture by its nature creates public space: a wall goes up, there’s now a wall to the outside as well as the inside. When the inside and outside disconnect, neither works. It’s so elementary I can’t imagine anyone could argue it.
marpole

Are we all taking this stuff far too serious? Where is the humour?
I have on & off days. I occasionally appear to ignore what some people say because I have nothing to say/reply. No doubt some folks might have their feelings hurt by that – but…
http://www.bio-organic.com Parker Dale

We live within the context of the whole.

Thank you for bringing the essential question of how will we live together, rather than just as possibly beautiful, disjointed, and ultimately life-less, separate parts.

The true experience of city is our interconnectedness.
Sherrie

It seems to me that the recent Festival of Ideas could have been the perfect opportunity to share the experience of many years in the business and succes and admittedly failures. It is unfortunate that inflated egos got in the way and left a negative lasting impression(at least on James Fallows).I have found in my tenure of planning public places that negative comments or criticism may be more enlightening than praise. You gotta take the good with the bad. Never dismissive, people are entitled to their opinion….even if we don’t like it.
I was not in Aspen, but courtesy in public is always the intelligent way to behave….for both the audience and speaker. Too bad the fresh ideas became mired in rude behavior…
Nathan Landau

If
Eric Sykes

the worst thing about buildings:

they are designed by architects

the worst thing about architects:

they have no interest in people or use only in design

the best things about places:

buildings that people enjoy using and don’t get lost trying to find a way in and out off.
Nathan

Frank Gehry indeed seems to conceive himself as an Artist with a Capital A. Such trivial concerns as relating to context or the public realm are apparently beneath him. In that case, he should only build in places where there is no urban context–locations surrounded by miles of open fields perhaps. Or maybe in places that are willing to let a Gehry obliterate the context, as in Bilbao. Disney Hall does not fit either of these situations, it is in the heart of the nation’s second largest city–adjacent to its civic center. Gehry’s arrogance at the forum sounds inappropriate, but it’s the buildings that are really arrogant.
Gwen

It seems to me that Blog “discussions” tend to showcase why we should be concerned about having really good public spaces.

Because we read other people’s thoughts and write our own, we think we have really communicated. (Same with Talk Radio)

I don’t think people would take the same tone in person that they do online. The level of vitriol we feel free to unleash online creates just as negative a dynamic as good old Frank Gehry demonstrated at this session.

People are disrespectful and dismissive of each other in blog discussions. The shared understanding that can be developed through real dialogue between people with different opinions never seems to show up in online comments.

We need real places more than we know. Same goes for real dialogue.
tye

A more clear question with less attitude might have elicited a more thoughtful response from an obviously prickly celebrity not use to public criticism.

I hope Kent’s poor manners don’t overshadow his trenchant critique of Gehrys’ exterior public spaces.
http://www.publicopenspacedesign101.com/blog/blog.html Harry Pasternak

@ Kent

I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry as I read your adventure with Gehry. What makes it so odd is that 39 years ago; I was commissioned by the Board of the Art Gallery Of Ontario (AGO) to design a sculpture for the front of the AGO. Yes, this is the same site of Gehry’s latest “tin billboard.”

The Board’s rational for my future sculpture was to attract and draw people into Canada’s most prodigious (pretentious) art gallery; that is, attract people who normally would never set foot into the AGO. The Board was to choose one of the four concepts. Here’s one of the concepts that I presented (for your amusement):
http://www.publicopenspacedesign101.com/blog/Entries/2008/5/19_ARTISTs_VERSUS_THE_CREATIVE_CLASS.html

At no point in my five or six meetings with the Board; did the Board ever concern itself with the Public Open Space – the streetscape – that ran along the entire northern facade of the AGO. The AGO’s prime concern was to get customers into the art museum. Did Gehry fulfill the Board’s mission – the Board’s design to incorporate all of the Public Space in front of the museum? You bet! The AGO has commandeered the entire streetscape – the entire Public Open Space running adjacent to the AGO for it’s own purposes. Neither the AGO’s Board, Director or architect (Gehry) get “IT”! It’s “The Public Open Space Stupid”. Aside from commandeering the streetscape; they set up every possible barrier, to keep people away from the front facade of the AGO (and the entrance). Its “The EDGE STUPID” (do they know what an EDGE is?)

It’s ironic that the world’s foremost city designer and renovator, Jan Gehl, spoke in Toronto a couple of months ago, to a standing room crowd of over 500 people at 3 pm on an ordinary Wednesday afternoon. In his introduction, Gehl briefly touched on the notion “That Form Must Follow Function”; which Gehl then clearly demostrated hardly ever happens when architects, landscape architects, traffic engineers and the Elite get together. The above, all love to squat on and usurp and then destroy Public Open Space. You can hear Gehl talk about the lack of Function when it comes to buildings and city design at:
http://www.whatpriceisgoodinformation.com/Jan_Gehl_DX_2009/Jan_Gehl_Part_1.mp4
Tom Sturch

Form and space are dialogue, not dichotomy. Conversation, not diatribe. Constructive duality that invites instead of incites.

Give Gehry a break though – the air is a little thin in Aspen.
jk

Asking Gehry to change the habits (and professional practices) of a lifetime at age eighty may be a little too much to expect. And for him to admit to any flaws that his building may have created is probably unlikely too.

Perhaps Kent’s comments would be better directed at the ‘next generation’ of architects. Having said that, any publicity that underlines the relevance of place-planning when designing buildings has to be applauded.

It seems absurd to me – as a lifelong expert on the use of buildings and public spaces – that any architect could dispute the necessity of ensuring that public spaces work as an effective part of every scheme.
http://thecommontask.org Paul Grenier

Whether or not Mr. X or Mr. Y is pompous is of small importance. Even saints are often hard to get along with .. what of it? The interesting question is whether or not striking, bold architecture is in conflict with the creation of welcoming spaces for people on the street. The avant-garde (post-modern, etc.) scorn as authoritarian attempts to reign in their creative expression. Christopher Alexandrians (such as Nikos Salingaros or PPS) scorn as anti-human post-modern grandiosity and indifference to context. This tension is healthy. It becomes dangerous only if one side should ‘win,’ because both the creatively new and the contextually fitting are equally needed. The problem with (e.g.) some of Gehry’s work is not so much its ‘look’ as its scale and lack of relationship to what was there already. Usually when modern and post-modern architecture is hideous it is not so much the fault of the design as the inaptness of the scale and/or the absence of a harmonious relationship with what surrounds it. That is what creates its emotional coldness. A Mies van der Rohe-type “office park” for example, is typically awful, but the same building-type, if blended into a row of skyscrapers of similar size (but varied design) has an entirely different feel. Lest this statement boil down to a banal ‘let’s all be friends,’ I will add that it is in almost every case a lack of relatedness that cripples our public spaces, and to this extent the cocky star architects truly do need to learn from tradition.
Gwen

I wonder if it’s clear enough to everyone (architects, city authorities, users, etc.) what we mean when we say we want public spaces to “work”

Gehry seemed to really believe that his buildings “work”.

Maybe talking about “good” public space is not specific enough for getting the results we want.
Matt Magallanes

Placemaking is one the most important aspects of any modern urban project, and it remains neglected. Kent was provocative, but I can forgive that, knowing where he has been and what those of his ilk aspire to do. They want to make cities better for people that live in them.

I’m saddened by any attempt to simply lay accountability for good context and better placemaking at the feet of the building owner or the municipality. This is a total cop-out, and an embarrassment to the profession. If the architectural professional cannot aspire to merge the best of art and context then why would one expect a client or municipality to do so? Many will want to debate which is more important, but clearly any practitioner could by necessity assume a personal responsibility for vigorously assisting the client in being a better citizen. I would expect that clients would be much more pleased with their building in the long run and would take pride in the opportunity to improve the quality of life in the surrounding area if assisted by their architect in these matters. After all, the exterior is really an extension of the interior for those that use the building.

Many like Kent have spent years studying the mishaps and follies of architecture for the sake of architecture or poorly executed projects relative to the unnecessary decline of the surround area. What Kent has started with this question accidentally leads to a higher level: That it is the profession’s responsibility to assist the community and the client to create wonderful buildings with solid context and good placemaking elements. I am positive a man of great genius like Mr. Gehry could accomplish both with little impact on his art, just as a man with the passion and focus of Kent can help merge the two. The need to do so is incumbent upon the industry and to imply they are mutually exclusive in some situations is ridiculous.

MM
Iplanit

Although the wording of Smackdown is disturbing, and is total degrading it to some sideshow or fist fight, questions have to be asked and answers sought. Dismissing questions does not bring about solutions, nor does a smackdown.
http://www.publicopenspacedesign101.com/blog/blog.html Harry Pasternak

For the past 60 years at least, architects as well as landscape architects have had an enormous problem when designing anything. The FORM is what their salivating is all about; both by the Elite and the architects (and landscape architects). The latter simply don’t get the idea of FUNCTION.

The 80 yr. old British/Swedish architect Erskine was asked to define architect. His reply – “someone who loves people!”. I haven’t seen much love coming from architects over the last 60 years.

I would suggest that Kent get Jan Gehl (74 years old) to debate Gehry. Or hire me to do a documentary contrasting Gehry and Gehl. I’ll do it at cost.
Tom Jones

Sounds like Gehry got it precisely correct – a self-promoter looking for a moment for attention.
Coler

The discussion is not very well framed.

Fred Kent chose to pick a fight with a someone, a designer, who has had to fight at every step of his professional career. As with star anybodies, and especially for a designer, to even be noticed is difficult, to be noted is rare, and to be respected enough to be asked questions even rarer.

I fully support excellent public space and the process of placemaking however iconic architecture is not the issue. Iconic architecture fills the role with the context of a whole city as much as a focal point fills a role in a site. As such, the role of the designer (architect, landscape architect, artist) to give US a message about US is not something to be judged in the here and now. Our context changes, a site’s context changes and that message the designer will give us may just inform that change. If it is accurate or apropos it will become cherished, if it is comletely wrong it will be torn down or more likely just last long enough to become loved. Iconic architecture is not a panacea, but it can be a visual anchor.

Fred Kent, pick your fight with the people who flood home in automobiles to the suburbs on highways and the planners who encourage that and especially the bankers who will only fund suburban expansion. If low density automobile-oriented life is even partially resolved then any…any…urban space will be filled with people doing what people do and ‘Placemaking’ will be achieved. Being rude only sets a bad example.

Don’t bother trying to fight with fighters: Design is not easy.
M Chapman

Great places happen when a multitude of people centric activities converge, while iconic building worship could be one of these activities, most iconic buildings wouldn’t let all these other activities pollute the spaces around them and detract from the gallery spaces for viewing of the building. In fact most of the gallery spaces are designed so that they only have limited uses thus not allowing great people centric spaces with a wide variety of distracting and conflicting uses to emerge.
http://rigalldesign.com David Rigall

What is new about the tension between the hero and the community. It is a classic tale of the individual’s interests and success superceding the group’s. This architype helps define the major difference between the world view of Alaskan governors and that of community organizers. So it isn’t surprising to hear that a reporter is impressed with the fire you can kick up when you put strong proponents of each side in the same room. In my opinion, it is the overlay of complex meaning that comes with years of effective public use that makes a space great that is interesting to many. This process can be modeled and defined and promoted but not always easily put into a business plan. The payoff sometimes goes to the grandchildren of the creators. Some typical exceptions would be a space like Central Park – NYC where the adjacent property value increase returned many times over the initial investment. People are motivated by courtship, kinship and security and in my experience great spaces recognize all of these at once. Historic spaces and buildings, or in other words, culture telling its tale, is very effective in transmitting meaning, even if not completly understood or appreciated by all groups equally. Similarly, buildings and spaces speaking only an elite language will be understood as such.
http://www.kunstler.com James Howard Kunstler

Look up narcissistic personality disorder on the web.
A fertile realm for understanding the phenomenon of Starchitecture.
http://www.theamericanroadside.com Ron

Apparently Gehry’s skin is thinner than the titanium he uses to blind people approaching his monstrosities…

His buildings are not iconic at all, but rather are the end result of pointless software development. He is this decades Walt Disney, building “modern, cutting edge” crap that will look tired, old and hopelessly outdated (it mostly already does…) in a few years time.

Like too many of his ilk, he has squandered a vast talent, but made a pot load of money doing it. So it goes in America today.
http://myspace.com/websuspect websuspect

I found this through a parks coordinator in my neighborhood I was researching, Right now the global elite are building a high tech control grid prison and large open spaces that are not used and frequent places of muggings are right up there alley. What we need is American architecture place and ideas. We need large open spaces where people can meet and ideas are exchanged. The gold standard Halmark of a free society is the exchange of ideas and also clean running water and showers. What we need is more social spaces. The mall comes close but people only goto the mall to shop.
don tishman

The inarticulate assumption of the question was a conclusion knocking Gehry. Do not knock all “star” architects because of Gehry, who has enough problems defending lawsuits and losing commissions.
Personally, I don’t admire Gehry’s work, but anyone would be offended by this childish. self-serving question.
http://www.pdp.ca Tony Genco

It saddens me to read this. there is no right way or wrong way to build a place. Some mature over time, yet others can be instant hits. The nature of place making is optimism and effort. Lets not criticize! Lets help each other achieve our dreams in the best way the circumstances or the realities provide!
Alison Arnett

As a landscape architect and somewhat deciple of Fred Kent I know he was trying to start a thought process pointed toward his belief about a very important aspect to cities that is being lost with the advent of the automobile and star-chitecture. Basically the notion that that the architect is not the expert to dictate the use of space, but the user is the expert. This is appalling to most ego-centric architects and designers, but that is what Fred Kent advocates for, so he is far from pompous. He is an advocate for people and places. Gehry has famously said “I don’t do Context”, which is just about the most pompous thing an architect could say, much less believe and practice. Fred Kent founded PPS to continue and advance the studies of his mentor the venerable urbanist William Holly Whyte who was a observer of human behvior in public spaces, a sociologist, not a “designer”. Fred Kent would not say he was a designer and he states he does not want to be. Whyte and Kent’s goal was/ is to seek to find and what makes a space gathering places for people.

The Fred Kent question occurs at about 54 minutes into the talk and here is the link. http://www.aifestival.org/audio-video-library.php?menu=3&title=525&action=full_info&qclip=1

There is little question that the outide of Gehry’s buildings are sterile and devoid of life and people, which is what Fred Kent was getting at in so many words. The buildings Gehry designs are not places, but sculptures or objects to be gazed upon, used by few, and left. Thus, for the majority of the day it creates a black hole in the urban fabric and a missed opportunity in the public realm of a city. Perhaps even by design as I ahve found being a landscape architect that there is a notion that people and plants are detractors amongst some architects.

I think the question should have been worded more directly to let Gehry know what he was getting at…the actual question was way too esoteric. I think it was a somewhat whimpy challenge to be critical of Fred Kent. The point of the question is steel walls create no link to the area ouside the building and here is nothing to “do” there. The doors and entries are difficult to locate and there is no free flow from in to out and no “activating” features to the outdoor spaces. I think the proof is in the photos and visiting the building, however, what Fred Kent did not get to mention is that PPS often uses Bilbao as an example of a devoid space outside of a building. The user is afraid and uncomfortable. There has been documented increased crime and muggings after construction. I think Fred Kent knew the answer to his own question, having consulted on the issue for decades. I think he should have used examples of his experience cleaning up after other famous designers as proof to lend creedence to his question or the documented lack of use and increased muggings, but it was a lost opportunity. It then becomes a place that people actually use, enjoy and linger in our public realm. There is not doubt that thinking about this element is good for cities, quaility of life and business. Social ills in cities like homeless encampments, crime and grafitti are decreased or erased if we can put our finger on the “je ne se quoi” of what makes a place a place where other people want to linger and stay. Most people don’t think about this, what makes them stay or not stay, they just move on. I think sometimes designers think less about the concept. William Holly Whyte advocated for the drawing of people to place to avoid such ills and make cities livable. Whyte states “What attracts people most, it would appear, is other people”. The ulitmate point being thathow the public uses space, and would like to use space, should be the basis of the design. This is achieved by observation (in Whyte’s case, ground breaking studies using path analysis and time lapse photography) and asking the user. This is good stuff poeople, not to be dismissed.
K. Brown

Gehry is neither an artist nor a designer. He is a no talent, pretentious hack. His buildings look like a pile of space junk that crash landed where it does not belong. The real talent is in realizing that this earth was not put here for us to destroy. It’s beauty should be respected and complimented. And buildings should respect their place. A true artist can deliver a building that is artistically beautiful on it’s own as well as within context of it’s surroundings. We need to return to a time when form followed function.

As for what makes a place, you can spew any crap you want about how the future will tell or some other such pretention but the reality is, a place is made when people can relate on an organic level to their surroundings. Gehry’s garbage is hostile and unwelcoming and does not fulfill that most basic requirement. And it is also the stuff that makes people want to flee the city for a place less ugly.
http://www.streetfilms.org Clarence

I love this (well at least that Fred has put the question to him.)

I think there should be a SMACKDOWN challenge issued by all folks and organizations that support public space and livable streets. By answering a thoughtful inquiry with such disdain, he proves his design is all about him and not about the people he supposedly designing for.

I am all in favor of a weekly SMACKDOWN column! (Who’s next?!)
peggie ehlers

public spaces that are planned well welcome visitors with a sense of place and local flavor. this is what makes people come back and also the sense of place to its residence
keeps the local economy viable year round.
iconic architecture alone without a sense of place makes for empty public spaces and defeats the purpose of sense of place.
Richard Bryant, AIA

I totally applaud your observations about the current stark-itects. Their egos are as thick as pea soup and for the most part their designs just simply are unattractive. In many cases their buildings are both architectural and technical failures. A case in point is the newish Denver Art Museum. From my recent visit to DAM, I was amazed to find that the building has been pulling itself apart for months and is in the midst of a major re-construction effort. Now if only the architectural press had given as much attention to the failures as it did to the original design, then maybe the entire profession could have learned some valuable lessons. I complained in a letter to Ned Cramer of Architecture magazine about the problems at DAM, but he has ignored addressing the problem – maybe out of fear of offending one of the “stark-itects” or one of his advertisers.

“DAM-failings” would be a good topic for mister Kent and Fallows to take a look at and report on.

Also check out the blog of Randy Nishimura, President of the Southwestern Oregon Chapter of the AIA for more DAM discussions.

rnishimura@robertsonsherwood.com
http://www.berylbrenner.com Beryl Brenner

Having grown up in New York City where the most imaginative building was Wright’s Guggenheim against a background of boring white square buildings and old tenements, I would love to have more of Frank Gehry’s funky innovative stuff in my city. True the city is changing for the better. Alot of goodies have been put up since 911 for the first time in decades. We are building more green and more imaginative.
But there’s only one Frank Gehry in the world. And if some of his success has gone to his head he has more than earned it. He is an original thinker, an artist as well as an architect, a genius. His buildings pour out onto the street like a jumble of fun. His contributions are countless.
And hey, sometimes things are not all about public space. It’s just about the building itself and that’s okay.
Pingback: imagiNATIVEamerica.com » Quote of the Week
Kevin

Landscape architects and planners know how to create spaces well, maybe they should have a stronger roll in the design process? My assumption is that building architects are in complete control, thus their big egos and their reluctance to answer to criticism from people of other fields.

To Beryl – an iconic building that people want to be near to is a lot better than an iconic building that people want to stay away from. Why make a building that can only be enjoyed in photos?
http://www.womensinternationalnews.com Christine Vernon

The fact that James Fallows didn’t know who Fred Kent was and didn’t identify him by name is as disappointing to me as his last thirty seconds were with Frank Gehry’s dismissive gesture and the audience applause at Gehry’s reaction to Kent.

Gehry’s comment “You are a pompous man”…. You don’t have to be a psychoanalyst to know a classic projection when you hear one. Gehry gets “freaked out by petty annoyances”. Please! To ask a legitimate question of an architect and then have him proceed to characterize you as a person “intent on getting himself a pulpit.” or “marketing himself again at everyone’s expenses.” Please, spare us all this kind of insult!

When Gehry emailed Fallows “I apologize for offending you” he was moving closer to where he should be but not quite there yet. He should have just answered the question put to him by Kent kindly, thoughtfully, and professionally. He should thank Fred Kent for raising his consciousness and reminding him of the important human aspect of his work. People are listening to this and hoping to get insight and to learn from a discussion like this.

It seems to a lay person like me who had to look up the images of architecture by Gehry which made me think that they could be characterized as being from the Dr. Seuss School of Architecture (although I do like the look of the Sydney Opera House), that this is a man who serves clients, while I see Kent as a man who serves the public interest.

Our town, Oak Park, IL, famous for the cult of FLW, didn’t listen to Kent’s good counsel on open space/public space project. They knew better and, as a result, we have been left with a soulless downtown and we have been left with destruction and the loss of significant architectural structures in Downtown Oak Park and the loss of our one public space/mall in our main commercial area. Our current and last administration have done more damage to our architectural legacy here (the work of more than 100 architects) than any previous administration. What I have learned is never to be too sentimental on works of the past architects or future architects, developers will always have the last word. Ironically, now in Oak Park, some who have done real damage to landmarks have gone bankrupt in this economy. We, the people, deserve better than this. If they would have listened to Fred Kent’s worthwhile ideas, we would have had a downtown that served the public interest and not just the interest of a few business owners.

Fred Kent gave a seminar in Chgo a few years ago. I asked him what we do when the government takes away all of the street furniture. (So glad he answered me and didn’t name call.) It was my first such seminar. He had some great ideas. Didn’t the Tribune’s Barbara Brotman (8/3/09) give an example that what I said that day was true. She relates how Steve and Carrie, her neighbors created a Conversation Curve out in front of their house where most people have a front lawn. Recently, visiting Norwegian tourists asked if they could stop and rest and eat their bag lunches. They had come to visit the Frank Lloyd Wright Historic District. and they told her that they had been “dismayed by the scarcity of seating in an American surburb”. “They said ‘Back home, you can sit anywhere’.

So any of you who are sentimental about living or dead architects, Oak Park has been called a living laboratory of American architecture but you wonder for how much longer.

As more and more people are confined to more and more housing in our cities, which amount to”human filing cabinets” as one sociologist named them in the 60′s, public space has become and will continue to become vitally more important to our well-being. What is the threat of talking about the importance of it?

“Smackdown” with Frank Gehry

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

Filter Blog Posts By Type

Filter Blog Posts By Agenda