“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
Newer Comments →
  • Wei Kiang

    I’ll start with the defense for Frank Gehry. The question “why iconic architecture so often fails to create good public places” puts into perspective that iconic architecture and good public spaces doesn’t come together, making it seem that to create iconic architecture, good public spaces have to be sacrificed, and vice versa. It is possible to have both, and in fact both can re-enforce one another. This comes to my answer to this question…

    The answer is quite simple. Ego. It does not neccessary come from architects, it may come from clients. But more often than not, architects are responsible for that. Ego is to the obsession on the physical appearance of a man, just as being iconic is the obssesion on the physical appearance of a building. It’s no wonder that architectural humour often plays on skyscrapers as phallic symbols.

    The defination of iconic architecture is that it should stand out from the surroundings. Architects often find the easy way out, that the building has to be contextually seperate from the urbanscape and it’s surroundings. The most obvious solution is to create a vast, empty space with undefined programmes and use on all 4 sides of the building so that it can be “enjoyed” or “appreciated”. The direct consequence is that you get 4 pieces of desolute public spaces that does not even have visual contact with one another.
    Ego comes in, where architects refuse to add any programme or landscaping around the building to reduce any “nuisance” or “disturbance” around the building. Hence, most of the time, like in Frank Gehry’s Bilbao Museum, you get a large empty space paved with just concrete or stone nobody would go to other than just to take photos of the building from the outside.

    The second effect of ego is the shifting of priorities from the internal spaces of the building to the outside. Rather than form follows functions, Iconic buildings tend to have their functions twisted, reorganised and sacrificed to fit to the desired form that the architect “creates” and deem to “beautiful” to change. Notions of the experience and transition between the inside and the outside is taken over by the “impact of a dramatic entrance” to the building. And hence often the building lose it’s programmatic relationships with it’s surroundings.

    The third effect of ego, is the architects obsession of creating his own “style”. We see that in Frank Gehry’s and Zaha Hadid’s designs. There is this quality that people would immediately identify the design with the architect… Like “this is very Hadid”, etc. What transpires is that the form and materiality of such iconic buildings designed by starhitects are often at odds with the existing grain, texture, scale and colour of the sourrounding context. Contextual response is sacrificed for the architect’s own style, and it is alright for clients too, as standing out this way also means that their real estate stands out from the rest of the developments, which helps in marketing the product.

    Hence, back to what seems to be a struggle between iconic architecture and good public spaces. It does not mean that the 2 are at odds with one another. It just means that placemaking and creating good public spaces are on that last of the priorities when most starchitects design, and when clients review it. Hence it does not come as a surprise when Frank Gehry just brush the question aside.

  • Richard J Maneval

    I believe that not only are those paying for these “Starchitects” but the architects as well do not understand how important it is to design and place a building so it is safe to enter and exit. They further do not understand just how much of an impact they make on a community or neighborhood. Imaging having a place to met and greet others, to be safe and able to be sociable, and even keep the cost down so we can do even more for our communities and neighborhoods.

  • Pamela Tamaddon

    “Festival of Idea’s” in Aspen? Hummm! “Iconic” is a word used to define religious images depicted on small pieces of word.

    In fact many of Gehry’s work have proven to be “moronic” undertakings by those that have financed them, from leaking structures to cornea searing facades.

    In fact the previous poster Wei Kiang , just about say;s it all regarding the architecture of Mr. Gehry.

  • Rebecca

    In the early 90′s I saw a documentary about Philip Johnson and his work in the then recently re-united Berlin. In it he was challenged about his work in the context of the incredible political and social changes that had just transpired in Germany, and in particular some protests about his work from East Berliners who were alarmed at the rapid influx of Western architects and the rapid construction going on in East Berlin. Johnson’s take on the whole matter was that the E. Berliner’s opinions were trivial and unimportant and that they were unschooled. He impatiently implied that he didn’t think it was a relevant topic of discussion.

    Later, I saw many of Johnson’s Berlin projects glowingly featured and fawned over by critics in the AIA’s magazine of record at the time Architecture. No mention was made of Berliners’ thoughts or reaction to his designs.

    The knot in the stomach over Johnson or Gehry or any of their ilk is misplaced ire. It should be directed at the entire architectural establishment, of which we are a part.

    Strike at the root, not the branches.

  • Pamela Tamaddon

    Sorry for the typo “Icon’s” as defined are religious images painted on small pieces of WOOD.

  • Matthew Morgan

    Grand architecture that is unusable serves no purpose in humanity , other than to please the select few who commissioned it and do not live in the area. I agree that place making must take centre stage we already have a society that is contemporary , abstract , and serves 60km/h (100 miles an hour) architecture as well as services. We need to slow down and create actual places for people to go to , and actually interact with their surroundings, not just some fancy brickwork. A young person as myself is crying out for usable and functionable places in which we can all enjoy life.

  • http://www.publicopenspacedesign101.com/blog/blog.html Harry Pasternak

    “Design Is Not Easy?” Huh!? Or as they say in Canada – eH!?

    The Design Process is terribly easy – its so easy that it’s laughable to think otherwise. I teach building design to “average” “ordinary” “Joes and Joannes” – it’s as easy as 1,2,3. Takes only 4 hours to help the above learn how to totally design and draw buildings! Why can these inexperienced non-architects learn so quickly to do it better design than any architect? Take a guess.

    Its terribly easy; that is, if form follows function. For example, the front of any building – street facade, is extremely important. It’s called “The Edge”

    It can be a barrier to Public Open Space usage or it can facilitate usage. Jan Gehl has over 40 years of hard scientific research to prove that Gehry’s designs inhibit the usage of the streetscape adjacent to Gehry’s buildings. But anyone can see that in 3 seconds – that is anyone with the required skill sets.

  • Rudy Jackson

    I love the discussion about public spaces, but there is no “conflict” between Fred Kent and Frank Gehry – apples and oranges. In that context, yes, Mr. Kent was pompous and self-promoting. He started out the comment by informing everyone that he traveled as much as Gehry, and that basically, he is very important because he has to “clean up” after the architects. Why? What reaction did he expect, for heaven’s sake, especially from a well known architect at the end of his life? In theory, I love the work of PPS, but try to ignore the 30 % that’s Mr. Kent’s overblown ego.

  • Partick Bateman

    Gehry has famously said “I don’t do Context”.

    ————————

    That sounds fantastic to me.

    There are many buildings throughout history that do not relate to their context yet are loved and well used by many people.

    Without people like Gehry who are willing to do some different, to push boundaries and actually design rather than imitate we have stagnation. Dull, dismal towns and cities with brand new buildings that look like a clean version of the surrounding buildings.

  • neil cosentino

    From the Florida Bauhaus, thank you all for some very powerful, interesting and mostly helpful comments.
    We prefer to take this opportunity to invite all to share their solutions that help fill the gap between Gehry and Kent in regard to City Space.
    Our focus is in the air space above streets and sidewalks; to convert what is now empty to what should be.
    The design idea is not new – the designs are.
    We call these “fresh air” design concepts – Streets de Soleil.
    Our plan is for every city to have at least one Street de Soleil. We invite your space designs that uses the Space/Air rights owned by cities, on and above our streets and sidewalks to use that space to connect people, places and buildings. FMI Q&A 813-251-4669

  • http://www.jumpleith.co.uk Shaeron Averbuch

    I think the issue is that we do need a mix of “Star Architects” which from a style point of view we may each individually love or loath.
    I personally think that anyone that has achieved so much in architecture undoubtably deserves respect. Gehry will always be distinct. This is a major creative achievement in a world where, largely thanks to all forms of digital technology and mass production, etc, we seem hell bent on knocking the individuality and quirky detail out of most things. Architecture and public open space appears to have been hit the worst by the impact of speedy construction methods and developer led regeneration which leaves many of the public space issues unaccounted for. This is a great missed opportunity and a civic responsibility on the whole to try and address. Councils – at least in the UK – need to ensure that there are ways to look at the overall context of the architecture and the surrounding environment in order to create BETTER PLACES. Urban design, places for people and not soulless ghettos and cardboard cut out housing schemes. We need to emphasise individuality, small details that make a place unique and special for those who visit and more importantly for those who live and reside there.

  • http://www.johnsenlandscapes.com Jan Johnsen

    perhaps gehry doesn’t care because he sees buildings as art – art is object oriented.

    place is context oriented.

    place is about space and interaction within.

    too bad we can’t marry the two in this age…

    aspen, btw, doesn’t have much of a central place either —- lots of lovely millionaire homes but not much of a compelling village space.

  • http://linearbean.blogspot.com/ AJ

    Gehry’s famous quote “I do not do context” may cause many landscape architects and urban designers to cringe. Not me. I am glad he does not “do context” because he does not know how. Thats o.k.. He has trained and developed as an architect, and that should be his focus. As a landscape architect, I may have some thoughts and ideas concerning architecture, but I am not ready to design a building. I have no desire to and I might “wave my hand in a dismissive gesture” at anybody who would suggest it falls within my role as a landscape architect.
    Now unless Gehry is taking on the site design and demanding his way, I say the blame for the disconnect between architecture and landscape falls on the shoulders of whomever hired him and city officials reviewing the site drawings.

    The question asked of Gehry at this forum (by Fred Kent, President of Project For Public Spaces) was a perfectly valid question. It was simply asked of the wrong person.

  • Kieran

    ‘Frequent muggings as a result of the limited reasons for people to be there’
    as a statement is odd, as the muggings would not therefore be frequent …and its more to do with general crime which will target tourists or poor policing

  • http://www.newfourm.net Mark Good

    Beautiful buildings are an asset to the urban landscape. However, a building’s form must also follow its function.
    I attended Loyola of Los Angeles Law School, with its Frank Gehry designed buildings. The main lecture hall was so poorly designed, the lecturer could not be heard beyond the 4th row. The room was always too hot or too cold, since its design made balancing the A/C system impossible.
    The school chapel had a plywood facade that required repeated polishing with shoe polish, though I am not certain why.
    I have no problem with art for art’s sake. But when functionality is required, design must consider purpose.
    The building’s exterior is no different. If the architect ignores how the building relates to the site, he or she has ignored a critical element of the design program and has done the client a great disservice.
    Perhaps Mr. Gehry should allign himself with a good landscape architect.

  • http://www.passaiccountynj.org Michael La Place

    I raised the same issue with the closing keynote speaker, architect Witold Rybczynski, at the American Planning Association (APA) Conference in Minneapolis this Spring. He did a presention on iconic architecture and mentioned his favorite American examples like the Washington Monument in DC and the GE Building (30 Rockefeller Center) in NYC. His emphasis on singular buildings semed strange at a national planning conference so I pointed out to him that the setting and context of these landmarks (the national Mall in DC and Rockefeller Plaza) are far more iconic in terms of a sense of place and drawing people than just the focal point structures of the Washington Monument and 30 Rock. He admitted that he had not thought of that – which is precisely the problem. Too many architects don’t think like planners, even when they are invited to speak to an audience of planners!

  • Sara

    All of this discussion is EXACTLY what Frank Gehry is after. While he may not be an architectural genius he sure knows how to get people in neighborhood discussing things like context and value. Good for him as these would not even be on the radar in most communities with their skyscrapers and split level ranch homes. I, for one, work in a Gehry building – nothing, I mean NOTHING replaces the feeling of awe and inspiration you get when you are inside AND outside the facility. Thats all that matters….imagine someone trying to make the world a more interesting place??? what the heck was he thinking????

  • Barbara Shema

    I watched the video of the Q&A period and think Mr. Kent could have framed his question differently about how architects think about their designs in the context of place.

    In the way Mr. Kent presented himself and his question, it appeared he was more interested in impressing the audience and making his point than in truly having dialogue about the question he posed.

  • Gwen

    The “Moderator” during this exchange was a representative of the Pritzker family, sponsors of the coveted “Pritzker Prize” for architecture. He seemed to laugh off the entire issue.

    Potentially, the Pritzker folks need to sponsor a conference about architecture/context/people.

    It’s disappointing that Fred Kent addressed his question to Gehry rather than Pritzker. Gehry will not be around much longer, while we can assume that the Pritzker influence will be.

  • Pedro Campos

    Eero Saarinen made a great quote once that is relative to this discussion:

    ” Always design a thing by considering it in its next larger context – a chair in a room, a room in a house, a house in an environment, an environment in a city plan”

    Starchitect that ‘got it’ in my mind.

  • http://www.9thavenuerenaissance.com Christine Berthet

    Mc I am serious..

    Along the same ideas , listen to this WNYC bit on the air train and how the design of the termin al works – or not
    http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/137903

  • Magali Jurado

    I fully agree with Kent that landscape design SHOULD NOT be left in the hands of “an architect” no matter how talented… I think public spaces need to translate “spirit of place”,responding to cultural and environmental heritage and help improve citizens quality of life…Humility and participatory processes are required in order to produce real “works of art”! PPS is doing a great job in making this point in world debates…Congratulations Kent and please keep it up!!!

  • http://www.publicopenspacedesign101.com/blog/blog.html Harry Pasternak

    @ Sara
    “I mean NOTHING replaces the feeling of awe and inspiration you get when you are inside AND outside the facility.”

    Not to rain on your parade; but how does the building function? I find it odd that a woman is more concerned on the looks of a building than rather whether it enables the users of the building to do what they need to do.

    So.. has anyone done any primary scientific research on the building you mentioned? At least.. a fill-in questionnaire going out to the users of the building. Naturally using “non obtrusive” research techniques (my specialty) would produce a much more valid study.

    Anyone here done any scientific research on a building to see how well it functions or doesn’t function? I have and it’s amazing to find out how the users – do or don’t use a building.

    I don’t know of one architect who evaluates a building – after it is finished. Which is criminal – in my opinion.

  • http://www.publicopenspacedesign101.com/blog/blog.html Harry Pasternak

    Several people here keep mentioning than urban planners or landscape architects should design the public open space adjacent to public buildings. But typically urban planners and landscape architetcs design public open space just like Gehry – badly!

    A 201 page, research/policy report on Public Open Space design and development, was commissioned by the United Kingdom’s Deputy Prime Minister’s Office, entitled, Living Places: Caring For Quality. The 201 page research/policy report makes two outstanding conclusions:

    A] Firstly, that PROFESSIONALS (and others), involved in designing/implementing Public Open Space, do NOT have the required SKILL SETS!

    B] Secondly, PROFESSIONALS (and others), involved in designing/implementing Public Open Space, need to go back to SCHOOL in order to gain the needed SKILL SETS!

    “ Unfortunately, …… the skills deficit in design (public open space design) and other key urban skills goes right across the urban remit, from professional and managerial skills, to trade and operative skills. Focusing on the issue….. rectification of the problem must begin the supply side, increasing the skills base available to design and produce better places.”

    Download the above $70 study/report for free at:
    http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/livingplacescaring

    By the way here is what an iPhone would look like if a landscape architect designed it:

    http://www.publicopenspacedesign101.com/blog/Entries/2009/7/23_Landscape_Architects_Design_iPhone.html

  • Alison Arnett

    Kent’s comment was unclear and never really got to the point. He danced around the issue and Gehry didn’t even really know what he was getting at. Only if you know of PPS’s mission would you even know what Fred Kent was getting at. It WAS quite pompous and insulting of Kent to say that he had to “clean up” after architects like him. I figure Fred Kent is quite proud of himself since he sent me this link though and he shouldn’t be, but his mission and the question is important. I think it was a missed opportuntity to begin on such a haughty note and to turn off Gehry to the point he was dimissive. There certainly was a better way to ask the question.

    As far as the commentary on this formum, it is ignorant to say that architects should ignore context and not engage the open space outside their buildings. The allied professionals should work together to make a place an active and appealing destination. Crime does happen more frequently in places where people do not want to be and cannot easily see or be seen. In this aspect, Gehry’s buildings are amongst the worst. He has a responsiblility to the cities where his buildings are built to engage the city outside. This is not just the architects job, it is the planner and plan checker and landscape architects job. It is all of our jobs. The user will ultimately make or break the place, but the user has to want to stick around.

  • http://www.petersoncos.com Howard Jensen

    All of our mixed-use projects are centered around a traditional main street and a town square or plaza. It matters not whether the project location is suburban or urban, the public spaces are designed first and incorporated into the siteplan as part of the transportation grid. The building footprints…office, residential, or hotel…are then incorporated into the siteplan in locations that support the smooth flow of human and vehicular traffic throughout the grid. “Iconic architecture” is architecture that supports what happens at street level, and the category includes a lot more than just buildings.
    In our projects we “condo” all the buildings so that we will always own and control what happens at the street level. Weston or Marriott, for example, may own the hotel, but we own the ground floor. Thus, we can program (control) the mix of retail, restaurant, entertainment and civic uses…in essence, exactly like a mall developer programs the merchandising plan inside its mall.
    A picture is worth 1000 words…go to http://www.nationalharbor.com for a good example of what we call “placemaking,” and why the architecture must always compliment and support the sense of place.

  • Ed McMahon

    To bad Gehry thinks of public space as a “petty annoyance”. The problem with to many modernist architects is that they consider neighbors, neighborhoods, the context of a building, public space and anything outside of their building as an annoyance to be ignored.

  • Judy Lee

    Coming from a Landscape Architect’s position I would one day love to see a ‘true’ collaboration between a architect and a landscape architect. Too many times are there a fight for power, a need to pleasure the known designer instead of being humble to one’s knowledge and wisdom.

    As for Gehry’s designs I do believe they are great pieces of architecture and that many around the world have come to appreciate and love. But they are also a one time deal. Not many come back to his architecture to meet a friend or take a lunch break…you see it and it’s almost just left as that. There a dream for photographers but not for the people who should truly enjoy it’s space, the people who live by it. Great spacial design consist of the people who live in the area not tourist.

  • why

    Bad manners, on BOTH sides of this debate, poorly serve the dialogue. These ideas are important; but PPS does itself (and the public it purports to serve) a disservice by sniping and acting rudely. Attention and respect are not the same thing, and it’s hard to take anyone’s ideas seriously when they’re surrounded by empty rhetoric and ad hominem attack.

    The way forward, in my view, is to ELEVATE the discourse by extending an olive branch to architects like Gehry, not alienating them further.

  • http://www.grantarchitects.com Gordon Ingerson

    This debate has set up a false dichotomy. The following is my personal polemic on the subject.

    All architecture has a context; some projects (most) should mesh with it on a fairly intimate level, while for some the goal of the project is to stand out from the surroundings. This does not mean that a “landmark” project (a monument of some sort, whether it has a function or not) has no relationship to its surroundings and should not consider them; it simply means that this relationship is different than it would be for other building types. Who would say that the Sydney Opera House does not respond to its location on the harbor? Yet it is certainly not what I would call conventionally “contextual”.

    The problem occurs when the wrong brief is assumed. Most buildings should not be this type of isolated monument. An office building should not receive this type of treatment, for example (Foster’s London “Gherkin”, Nouvel’s Barcelona “male member”, Gehry’s IAC Building).

    Iconic architecture is in no way at odds with good urban design. In fact, Gehry himself has created some buildings that relate well to their context and yet are quite innovative (his DG Bank, for example). Usually these are the structures where his design inspiration either came out of the program and context or serendipitously just happened to fit them well. This type of design, where a strong concept and a functional urban space meet, is not a contradiction in terms; it is just harder to do.

    The best architects are the ones who are also urban designers, whether officially titled so or not. The internal workings of a building are also an essay in urban design on a smaller scale, if done well. It is all placemaking, but the demands of different scales, proportions, functions, etc. must be understood. And highly creative designs are possible without ignoring the surrounding environment; it just takes more creativity to find the right solution and certain mental toughness to reject a “favorite idea” that does not work.

    This is why I must disagree with the idea that the early modernists were failures in this area. The earliest modern design concepts were derived by architects who were designing in a new idiom but were trained under the old regime of Beaux-Arts schooling or had just internalized their traditional European surroundings. They understood the proportions and scale of the existing built environment and incorporated these into their designs, even though the actual architectural language was quite different. Later designers lost this connection, and sometimes the architecture (and the urban fabric) suffered as a result. Their radical large-scale city plans are another matter.

    I guess that should be long enough for a single rant. And pompous enough too.

  • Kelly Wellington

    Well…All that fits well with my impression that Gehry is a narcissistic elitist fraud.

    Who cares what Gehry has to say, anyway?

  • Sarah

    As an urban designer employed by local government, the whole architecture vs context issue is one I deal with every day. I feel that there are a number of key stumbling blocks to getting decent, integrated outcomes.

    Firstly, a lot of public spaces in cities is not in private ownership. Many are under the control of a city authority struggling to deliver basic services, with little budgetary ability to design and build show-stopping public places. Many spaces are under the control of roading departments. Before criticising context, be sure you know who owns/controls it. It may not be an architect’s fault that a pretty building has a rubbish space next to it. I don’t condone this, but it’s the reality of ratepayer-funded organisations.

    Secondly, architects work for clients who are paying them to design a BUILDING and that’s where their focus and resources go. It would be a happy day that I saw a the plans for a building that included a decent plan for any space around it. Most clients also seek to maximise built development on a site so any contribution to adjacent space that is in public control is really a big ask. Most private developers are not that generous.

    Thirdly, there seems to be some sort of hierarchy of importance in the minds of architects. Architects are at the top, and if they happen to be collaborating with a half-decent landscape architect employed by the client, they are also worthy. The person financing the project is also up there in status. Urban designers are further down the ladder (they rarely employ their own) and planners and traffic engineers languish at the bottom of the heap. Any wisdom contained in the city’s planning documents is usually dismissed with a Gehry-like wave. This even happens here, where ideas following a visit by Jan Gehl inform our thinking about the city’s public realm.

    However, it’s not the architects who should take the blame for soulless places – they are only one piece of the jigsaw. It’s those who fail to co-ordinate the various players in the city development game. Or fail to even try. In the end, we’re all after the same outcome – attractive, safe, interesting, vital cities.

    So Gehry is not the bad man, and neither is Kent. Each has their own passion. What is a shame is that these passions don’t overlap more frequently, stirring these lively and necessary debates and raising everyone’s consciousness about the need to work in collaboration.

  • Louis Sauer, FAIA

    Well, I think Gehry himself, unlike his work, is really old to not have the time to consider disagreeable questions. I’m 81 years old and unlike Gehry, I greatly enjoy questions that may shake me up by challenging my notions of form or my ways of place making or the ethics I use to establish design priorities.

    I just stumbled onto this site and, right now, I’ve got a deadline to make so I don’t have the time to do justice to my thoughts about this interesting dialogue.

    But to give you folks a sense of where I’m at as an architect/urban designer /educator, I agree with all of Alison Arnett’s and Gordon Ingerson’s comments.

    To Harry Pasternack: your statement is too global in castigating all architects. Architects are no different than any other discipline in that there are a range of service individual from the less skilled to the exceptionally skilled and from one to the other ethical persuasion.

    Perhaps more to the point of your criticism that no architect has evaluated their work after construction, during the years that I practiced architectural design in my Philadelphia office, I conducted post-occupancy evaluations as well as commissioning them to be done with various social scientists. All these evaluations provided my design practice with significantly insightful knowledge that modified our design and its priorities.

  • David Schlegel

    Everyone knows Frank Gehry is an arrogant tool.
    We’ve massaged his ego enough over the years. His architectural achievements however, should not be slighted because they are indeed groundbreaking. On the other hand though, those achievements do not make him immune to criticisms. His work lacks the ability to draw people except for a quick snapshot. There is no “place” when it comes to his work, just the building.

    I hold onto the ideal that architecture like Gehry’s and Placemaking can coexist beautifully. It is a valid question and one that Gehry should try to answer himself.

    I commend Kent for standing up to a guy when he knows that Gehry is such a pompous jerk. Architects, you’d be wise to keep your arrogance to a minimum and learn the that placemaking is as significant as the building itself.

  • Mark David

    Mr. Gehry’s response or lack of is typical of many architects, fortuantely not all. Sometimes I get the feeling that many architects are just memorializing their egos in concrete, steel and glass and the space around these temples is of no importance.

    One just has to look at many city skylines and see the iconic architecture only to be throughly dissapointed when seeing their non-existent relationship to the land use that surrounds them.

    Frank Gehry has done some interesting work, but a buildings design is only half the job. If the building and its architectural facade isn’t representative of the place it occupies it should ultimately be deemed a failure. In that respect much of Gehry’s work is a failure.

  • http://www.publicopenspacedesign101.com/blog/blog.html Harry Pasternak

    @Louis Sauer
    “I conducted post-occupancy evaluations as well as commissioning them to be done with various social scientists. All these evaluations provided my design practice with significantly insightful knowledge that modified our design and its priorities.”

    I’m guessing there are least 10,000 architects, 10,000 urban planners, and 10,000 landscape in North America. How many of the latter do you personally know – who evaluate ever project they design?

    Naturally there are invalid as well as valid scientific ways of evaluating how functional a building or public open space is. Which method did/do you use? Are there any online to read?

  • http://www.publicopenspacedesign101.com/blog/blog.html Harry Pasternak

    @Sara
    “it’s not the architects who should take the blame for soulless places”

    Of course architects have to take the blame; architects are paid to produce a functional building. Architects do this by hiring acoustical engineers, interior designers, fire protection engineers, quantity surveyors, structural engineers, landscape architects as well as using their own internal staff. The buck stops at the architects drawing board! There is no one else to blame for dis-functional monuments.

    It is a if – people arrive to a building by parachute. Cooomonnn stop apologizing for people who do shoddy work!

  • Donna Clark

    We need more Fred Kents who are bold enough to stand up to “important” people and remind them that common sense is a useful part of the creative process. PPS is a vital contributor to the worldwide dialogue on public spaces, and I hope that conversation will continue to forge a new set of priorities that will be used to bring us public buildings and open spaces that are welcoming, functional and safe.

  • http://www.publicopenspacedesign101.com/blog/blog.html Harry Pasternak

    It is very easy to design public open space around BIG BOX buildings. Look at Gehry’s BIG BOXES and you can see that everything is missing. You likely are wondering missing … what!?

    A functional public open space has all of the elements … all of the physical “ear marks” of a good party. Can you see any “ear marks” around/adjacent to Gehry’s BIG BOXES that suggest that it’s possible to have good party around the outside of his BIG BOXES?

    I see absolutely zero elements – aside of the fact that all of Gehry’s BIG BOXES look like crematoriums to me. Any seventeen year old can tell what the elements are needed in order for people to stay for a long time at a party (and on public open space.)

    It is really that simple (if you love people)!

  • nabor

    I have never seen actual documented facts about the number of muggings at Bilbao – only one mugging event that was seen by a PPS staff member. I have no problem with analyzing effectiveness of public spaces through data, but do make sure you have real data to back up your claims.

  • NOW

    @ nabor

    Here is a link to a description of the mugging incident on PPS’s site as told by Ethan Kent, Fred Kent’s son and a well educated and respected “staffer” as you say/heir apparent to PPS in carrying on their visionary message. When he reported this to the police they said it was not uncommon there and it seems they asked all types of questions to the police about the crime in the area. I have heard Ethan Kent tell this story a couple of times at PPS seminars, and I don’t doubt that they reported the incident to the police and found out all about the incidents.

  • NOW
  • Kerry Jothy

    I think iconic architecture has its place and function. However in the wake of this global financial meltdown (which was directly tied to property markets and development) there is a pressing need of a forum to address a more wholistic, pragmatic approach to design and development , rather than creating more hype that preceded this mess we find ourselves in, as cities join the rush to re-invent themselves, at the expense of their communities.

  • Brownie

    Fred’s question is right on. While recently looking at an architecture book on new buildings in Dubai and the Middle East, it struck me that while the buildings looked spectacular, the relationship at the ground level was very plain and the same you would expect in most places in America. And that’s where people interact with the buildings probably the most. How many times do we see new buildings go up and then when they are done, the public space around them is dead. Contrast that with some wonderful places where you always want to go back to, many of which are very successful pedestrian areas, where the people are, at the ground level of the buildings!

  • Pingback: The purpose of placemaking – form or function? « CORDthinking

  • Will

    I am a city planner by profession. The closing keynote session of the American Planning Association’s 2009 National Planning Conference was by Witold Rybczynski titled “When Buildings Try Too Hard”, primarily a discussion about “Iconic Buildings” and the recent trend to try to create instant “icons”. I questioned Mr. Rybczynski if architects have a code of ethics “to do no harm” similar to the Hippocratic Oath? In Cleveland, Ohio we have our Gehry building at Case Western Reserve University. I will admit the curved and twisted metal roof is beautiful when it reflects the setting sun but apparently no consideration was given to the fact that we get snow in Cleveland. It is my understanding that during the winter they have to cordon off the sidewalks around the four or five story building so that pedestrians are not killed or injured by avalanches of ice and snow that periodically slide off the curved roof! That is ludicrous! I assume the Gehry designed band shell at Millenium Park in Chicago is not used much during the winter and in my opinion it and the pedestrian bridge he designed over the freeway to it are beautiful, sculptural and contextual with lots of great public space around them. Mr. Rybczynski made a statement that the concept of “Placemaking” is as arrogant as “Icon Making”. His opinion is that placemaking is an organic process. The public will make the “place”, we can set the stage, but it takes time for a place to become a “place”.

  • mike dobbins, faia, aicp

    There is a dialectical relationship between buildings and the civic environment that connects them with people and each other. Buildings are usually “private,” the locus of personal activity, like places to sleep or make a living in. The civic realm is “public,” that which we all own, traverse and on a good day gather together in. In the best places, this dialectic synthesizes and honors the positive aspects of both kinds of space. We don’t have too many of these.

    “Architecture” is historically the name given to those buidlings commissioned by people of great wealth and power to memorialize their importance. Architects court people with enough resources to build “architecture” (Frank Gehry dismisses 95% of buildings as not being “architecture”).

    In these times, trophy architects (I find this expression more accurately descriptive), having found compatibility with their patrons, are expressing their clients’ aspirations for immortality through really creative, expressive – and expensive – works, elegies on our present age of excess. Sometimes in breathtaking ways, though as the melted building syndrome proceeds, look for them to pop up in degraded form in shopping malls.

    The civic environment, on the other hand, is what we all own and collectively use to get where we need to go and, if we design it right, celebrate our civility. It’s a different kind of design. Rather than “express” the will of the powerful through the will of the trophy architect, civic design “reflects” – or should – the will of the people, we who own this space. It seeks to meet both the functional and the aesthetic, togetherness needs of the many.

    This latter kind of design has been in short supply. Most architecture and even landscape architecture schools, which teach how to conceptualize three dimensionally, holistically, and simultaneously, overwhelmeingly extol and promote the patron-architect model as the only way to go for their students to become true architects. This emphasis, naturally enough, leads to a culture that creates self-expressive “iconic” buildings. Though the balance between the two approaches to design is beginning to even up, people trying to teach urban design still often have an uphill struggle with their object designer colleagues.

    Buildings and the civic environment together is where we live, and the civic environment part doesn’t get nearly the design attention it should. Trophy architects are not trained in civic design, indeed have chosen a path that extols the individual patron – usually rich – and so tend not to even relate to a position that says the civic realm matters. Thus they rarely contribute to its enhancement, and they more likely debase it with their “look at me” fixations. Mr. Gehry’s response to Mr. Kent’s question says it all.

    Fred Kent tries to lift the importance of our shared space in this dialectic. As a result, he has a much deeper understanding and knowledge – indeed more skill – in the design of the civic environment than ttrophy architects. His many successes are tribute to this reality.

    (If you want to read more, there’s this new book, “Urban Design and People,” published by Wiley)

  • Susan Kramer

    I’m sure that when Frank Gehry puts on a pair of shoes he thinks of how they’ll look in the context of his clothing. He likely wouldn’t put on a pair of wingtips with shorts. So he “does context.” A building does not go up in a bubble. For any architect to build a building without thinking of what is outside its doors is someone just not doing their job. I don’t care how beautiful or interesting the building is. It is not a sculpture, no matter how much of an Artiste the architect thinks they may be.

    Thanks, Fred, for putting it all in perspective, which was the whole point, wasn’t it?

  • Carlos Caminos

    In relation to starchitects in general and Gehry in particular, I think it worthwhile to ponder John Silber’s comment in his book Arquitecture of the Absurd:
    Architectur of the absurd is flourishing thanks to the debasement, inexperience, and supine gullibility of the clients. What is the cure? Perhaps re-reading Hans Christian Andersen’s insightful fairy tale “The Emperor’s New Clothes” will help. The client -not the architect- is the emperor; it is he who is mocked when architects forget their function as practical artists in partnership with clients whose views are worthy of respect and whose economic resources are not to be exceeded. The patrons, the clients -the ones who pay- should not forfeit their dignity as persons and allow themselves, through vanity, gullibility, or timidity to be seduced. Clients should not be flummoxed by architects who overstep the practical limitations of their profession. Theoryspeak, celebrity, and self-proclaimed Genius cannot cover the naked absurdity of much contemporary architecture.

  • http://mikeforport.com Michael McAuley

    Gehry’s work is pretty amazing. I’ve had the pleasure of seeing his work at the EMP in Seattle. It’s out of context, it’s almost ugly and it seems to make no sense architecturally – but it’s art and I look at it as such. Luckily the EMP is adjacent to the long term Seattle Center attraction left over from the ’62 World’s Fair which gave the world the Space Needle. The problem with iconic architecture like Gehry’s, tho, is that it’s almost predetermined to remain separate. As I read the postings here I was reminded of a long ago trip to Jamaica where the ‘compound’ we stayed at was gorgeous; it, too, was out of context in an otherwise horribly impoverished area so while the experience inside was first rate if you like that sort of thing, the experience immediately outside was altogether disembodied from the resort.

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →