It's Ed Golterman, and I was wondering if that was him too. He did look familiar, but I haven't heard anything about him in a long time.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:I wonder if "that Ed Goltermann (sp?) dude" is the nut who left half-way through?
- 2,772
DeBaliviere wrote:Like this piece of crap in Chattanooga:
That looks more like a photoshopped picture from The Onion than it does an actual building
- 11K
Who was the south extension done by? What was the planning process? Was it disliked from the beginning? I'm asking because it's always fashionable for people to say that some previous building should be replaced.
- 476
Juice13610 wrote:DeBaliviere wrote:Like this piece of crap in Chattanooga:
That looks more like a photoshopped picture from The Onion than it does an actual building
Especially with the beautiful building its connected to.
Grover wrote:Who was the south extension done by? What was the planning process? Was it disliked from the beginning? I'm asking because it's always fashionable for people to say that some previous building should be replaced.
Kivett and Myers, 1976.
There's some interesting info on earlier expansion proposals, including models and renderings, on the Art Museum's web site. Go to "Library", then "Building Archives", then browse "South Wing"
- 6,775
Framer wrote:Grover wrote:Who was the south extension done by? What was the planning process? Was it disliked from the beginning? I'm asking because it's always fashionable for people to say that some previous building should be replaced.
Kivett and Myers, 1976.
There's some interesting info on earlier expansion proposals, including models and renderings, on the Art Museum's web site. Go to "Library", then "Building Archives", then browse "South Wing"
Which was actually a re-skin of an older extension. The auditorium part goes back to the 50's, IIRC.
I'm glad that SLAM opted against a “bold” design involving a cartoonish outgrowth from the original building. We’ve seen far too many expansions that look like UFOs crashing into old buildings.
Well said. I am a HUGE fan of this addition. The two goals of this museum addition are: improving incongruities at the museum, circulation, access, etc. and having additional space to show more works of art.
The goal is NOT to have some type of ridiculous out of the box addition that totally draws attention not only away from the main exhibition hall, but the ART as well. Frank Lloyd Wright's Guggenheim in New York is sometimes criticized because the art is overshadowed by the building.
I really love this design and I'm excited. I only wish it was even larger. Who/where are those DOLTS now who were against the museum expanding. They should be shot.
- 11K
^ True. It would be very cool to see a mirror image building on the west side. I think I would have liked to see something with similar proportions to the existing building but with glass walls . . . instead of a low flat building, have something understated but with a more traditional look - like a mini Gilbert building with modern materials. Wow, that sounds cheesy, but it looks good in my mind!
Sure, I guess this is good considering that our society is generally incapable of building anything close to the quality of what our preceding generations did just a 100 years ago. (Does anyone else find that extremely strange? Given the advancements in construction and laser technology, computer modeling, etc you'd think it would be CHEAPER. Hmmm...)
Good work on not detracting too much from the obviously superior century-older building.
Good work on not detracting too much from the obviously superior century-older building.
- 1,517
In capitalist systems, progress is not necessarily synonymous with better technologies, only more efficient and productive. If it's more efficient to build a development of 400 McMansions than a block of ten stately brick structures with fine masonry work, the development will occur in that fashion.
Add on top of that that such housing mass construction techniques were underwritten by government programs, then you have a formula for making skilled craftsmanship disappear forever. It's rarely feasible anymore, even in the most upscale of developments.
Add on top of that that such housing mass construction techniques were underwritten by government programs, then you have a formula for making skilled craftsmanship disappear forever. It's rarely feasible anymore, even in the most upscale of developments.
- 6,775
Bastiat wrote:Sure, I guess this is good considering that our society is generally incapable of building anything close to the quality of what our preceding generations did just a 100 years ago. (Does anyone else find that extremely strange? Given the advancements in construction and laser technology, computer modeling, etc you'd think it would be CHEAPER. Hmmm...)
Good work on not detracting too much from the obviously superior century-older building.
You're assuming the new addition isn't of the same "quality" as Cass-Gilbert. How do you measure that?
- 101
We do have some quality buildings happening. You just can't buy them, most of those are dressed up 'builder grade' buildings. Casinos, corporate headquaters, and other government buildings seem to have the ability to be well built (and often profitable) to the developer. $$$$$
Matt Drops The H wrote:In capitalist systems, progress is not necessarily synonymous with better technologies, only more efficient and productive. If it's more efficient to build a development of 400 McMansions than a block of ten stately brick structures with fine masonry work, the development will occur in that fashion.
Add on top of that that such housing mass construction techniques were underwritten by government programs, then you have a formula for making skilled craftsmanship disappear forever. It's rarely feasible anymore, even in the most upscale of developments.
It is true that it is more "efficient" to build with cheaper materials and less complicated construction techniques if building structures for the lowest cost is the objective. But I don't believe that people prefer cheaper quality architecture to high quality architecture. I do believe that most prefer other goods such as HD TVs and new cars to quality architecture.
I think that the government directly taking approximately a third of our income has a lot to do with the crappy throw-away feel our cities have today. If people had that extra money, I think that they would opt for the better design. I think that you can see the decline in attention to detail as taxes have risen. The most intricate houses were generally built before the income tax came into effect, generally what we call quality "historic" was not built after the New Deal, etc.
Also, the unions played a huge role in making sure that the ranks of craftsmen are small and that new technology did not destroy jobs, etc. If a person laying bricks is making better than $20 an hour plus benefits, then something is not right.
Of course, there are changing preferences and new materials and what not that are underlying reasons as well. I could understand if we did not build like we used to if we like the new construction materials better or less ornate buildings, but it is simply because it is too cost prohibitive. We could not build it if we wanted to.
I have complete faith that the new addition will be top-quality throughout. No, it doesn't have lots of intricate masonry work, but that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of construction.
A big reason buildings 100 years ago had so much more detailing and ornament is that labor was dirt cheap back then. The country was flooded with hundreds of thousands of European immigrants, who brought with them the old-world skills which had been passed-down from generation to generation. And they were willing to work for whatever wage they could get in an employer's market.
Clearly, the power balance has tipped quite a bit since then from the employers to the workers. Some people feel this is a good thing (quality of life for the average American), some people feel it's bad (over-priced, dubious construction standards).
Again, I don't think any of this has anything to do with the Art Museum expansion. This is a unique, specialized construction job, which will demand the highest construction standards thoughout.
A big reason buildings 100 years ago had so much more detailing and ornament is that labor was dirt cheap back then. The country was flooded with hundreds of thousands of European immigrants, who brought with them the old-world skills which had been passed-down from generation to generation. And they were willing to work for whatever wage they could get in an employer's market.
Clearly, the power balance has tipped quite a bit since then from the employers to the workers. Some people feel this is a good thing (quality of life for the average American), some people feel it's bad (over-priced, dubious construction standards).
Again, I don't think any of this has anything to do with the Art Museum expansion. This is a unique, specialized construction job, which will demand the highest construction standards thoughout.
More glass and steel. Build enough of these, continue hacking through the roots of the civic culture, and in enough time there is no need to wonder why a true community doesn't exist anymore.
All modern buildings of the last fifty years are out of date a decade after they are built. It's long over due to recapture the spirit of the past in our buildings with the flare of a modern touch.
Instead, like this expansion, we keep on building things that in no way connect to the nature and society around them.
All modern buildings of the last fifty years are out of date a decade after they are built. It's long over due to recapture the spirit of the past in our buildings with the flare of a modern touch.
Instead, like this expansion, we keep on building things that in no way connect to the nature and society around them.
- 6,775
Navigatio wrote:All modern buildings of the last fifty years are out of date a decade after they are built. It's long over due to recapture the spirit of the past in our buildings with the flare of a modern touch.
Instead, like this expansion, we keep on building things that in no way connect to the nature and society around them.
I suspect someone in 1904 said the same thing about the Cass-Gilbert building.
I suspect someone in 1904 said the same thing about the Cass-Gilbert building.
A building of classical design that incorporates elements going back to...well...the classical times of the Greeks and buildings throughout the West have been constructed in this fashion for thousands of years vs a post WWII style that seeks to be a statement of having nothing to do with anything conventional rather than taking in the society and natural surroundings into consideration.
I tend to think we'll regret this style and design in thirty years.
- 6,775
Navigatio wrote:I suspect someone in 1904 said the same thing about the Cass-Gilbert building.
A building of classical design that incorporates elements going back to...well...the classical times of the Greeks and buildings throughout the West have been constructed in this fashion for thousands of years vs a post WWII style that seeks to be a statement of having nothing to do with anything conventional rather than taking in the society and natural surroundings into consideration.
So you want every building to be the same "classical" style? What a dull world that would be.
Navigatio wrote:I tend to think we'll regret this style and design in thirty years.
I disagree. I don't see too many people regretting Phillip Johnson's glass house. Or Mies van der Rohe's Barcelona Pavilion, Seagram Building or Farnsworth House. Or FLW's Guggenheim. To name just a few.
- 69
Then again, how many Wright Guggenheim's are there vs. the proposed StL Museum expansion? I just don't think the expansion is in the same category at all in terms of its conceptual innovation.
I hate to agree, but I think it will just be another addition in 30 years. I hope I am very wrong though.
I hate to agree, but I think it will just be another addition in 30 years. I hope I am very wrong though.
Don't you think minimalism is getting a little tired? Just like the -ism which inspired it, it is time to give it a proper burial.The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Navigatio wrote:I tend to think we'll regret this style and design in thirty years.
I disagree. I don't see too many people regretting Phillip Johnson's glass house. Or Mies van der Rohe's Barcelona Pavilion, Seagram Building or Farnsworth House. Or FLW's Guggenheim. To name just a few.
This is why I like Calatrava, Piano, and Foster so much, and Gehry - to a lesser extent. I see them taking architecture in a new, more organic direction, or perhaps back to the pre-minimalist era of Sullivan and Antoni Gaudi, whichever you prefer. They have rejoined the art of architecture and the science of structural engineering, which, for whatever reason, became separate disciplines over the last century. Technology is the driving force behind this reunification, and it is opening up a whole world of design possibilities, previously exiled to the architect or engineer's imagination.
Calatrava, Piano, Foster, et al. have recognized this, and I would have loved to see what they could have done with this expansion. Maybe we would have a design that represented the first chapter in a new architectural era, rather than the last chapter in a dying one.
- 11K
Matthew/E36 wrote:Then again, how many Wright Guggenheim's are there vs. the proposed StL Museum expansion? I just don't think the expansion is in the same category at all in terms of its conceptual innovation.
I hate to agree, but I think it will just be another addition in 30 years. I hope I am very wrong though.
We love our Cass Gilbert building, but let's be honest, it's just another art museum. It's neat, it's beautiful. I love to visit it, but it's not an exceptional world-class the building the way it is.
'Exercise in restraint'
By David Bonetti
POST-DISPATCH VISUAL ARTS CRITIC
11/25/2007
Architect David Chipperfield at a press conference unveiling the new design for the Saint Louis Art Museum.
(Stephanie S. Cordle/P-D)
David Chipperfield is not a flashy guy. Even though his official portrait is by celebrity photographer Nick Knight, he tends to wear comfortably rumpled suits and unpolished shoes.
None of the buildings he has designed in the past 20-plus years could be described as flashy either. And that includes his recently unveiled expansion plans for the St. Louis Art Museum. With offices in London, Berlin, Milan, Italy, and Shanghai, China, he has grown a worldwide clientele drawn by his reputation for designing subdued buildings that function seamlessly, are without bombast and tend to come in on or under budget.
Chipperfield's work has been called "an exercise in restraint." At a moment in architecture when more and more buildings are crying, "Look at me! Look at me!" that comes as a relief.
Read More
By David Bonetti
POST-DISPATCH VISUAL ARTS CRITIC
11/25/2007
Architect David Chipperfield at a press conference unveiling the new design for the Saint Louis Art Museum.
(Stephanie S. Cordle/P-D)
David Chipperfield is not a flashy guy. Even though his official portrait is by celebrity photographer Nick Knight, he tends to wear comfortably rumpled suits and unpolished shoes.
None of the buildings he has designed in the past 20-plus years could be described as flashy either. And that includes his recently unveiled expansion plans for the St. Louis Art Museum. With offices in London, Berlin, Milan, Italy, and Shanghai, China, he has grown a worldwide clientele drawn by his reputation for designing subdued buildings that function seamlessly, are without bombast and tend to come in on or under budget.
Chipperfield's work has been called "an exercise in restraint." At a moment in architecture when more and more buildings are crying, "Look at me! Look at me!" that comes as a relief.
Read More
- 69
Grover wrote:We love our Cass Gilbert building, but let's be honest, it's just another art museum. It's neat, it's beautiful. I love to visit it, but it's not an exceptional world-class the building the way it is.
I agree and that's what I think the expansion will be...just our art museum.
I think one of the strengths of the new art museum expansion is the underground parking. However, I wonder if parking will be open only to members and staff or if it will be public parking (paid I assume). I remember hearing from staff at the museum that parking will be a member exclusive. I guess this would be an incentive for people to join...
Here's the current parking rates at other attractions
Zoo-$10 all day
Science Center-$9 all day, free at Planetarium
History Museum-free
Botanical Gardens-free
Should they make it open to the public or only for members?
Here's the current parking rates at other attractions
Zoo-$10 all day
Science Center-$9 all day, free at Planetarium
History Museum-free
Botanical Gardens-free
Should they make it open to the public or only for members?
- 6,775
b777stl wrote:I think one of the strengths of the new art museum expansion is the underground parking. However, I wonder if parking will be open only to members and staff or if it will be public parking (paid I assume). I remember hearing from staff at the museum that parking will be a member exclusive. I guess this would be an incentive for people to join...
Here's the current parking rates at other attractions
Zoo-$10 all day
Science Center-$9 all day, free at Planetarium
History Museum-free
Botanical Gardens-free
Should they make it open to the public or only for members?
Unless they plan on having 300 members and/or staff in the museum at any given time, I think it is safe to assume it will be public parking.
Whether it is free or not, I don't know.