There was a show on channel 9 a couple of weeks/months ago where they interviewed the architect; he said something to the effect that the main 1904 building now is a reflection on the ideas and concepts of the beginning of the last <20th> century. The new addition is going to "complement" the main building ? being respectful to it - with a ?reflection? on the beginning on this <21st> century. I was writing a paper at the time so I didn't get a whole lot more out of it than that - but it was fairly interesting -- if anyone can elaborate....
I didn't see the program you mention but it sounds interesting. I can tell you that the original Cass Gilbert building came out of the City Beautiful movement popular in the 1890's and early 20th cent. While it looks pretty, some at the time and many now see this type of design as the language of imperialism and not appropriate for a modern-day democracy. Judging from David Chipperfield's past work, and his comment about the new wing reflecting the 21st century, I would expect something similar in massing to the original building, but incorporating a lot of glass (transparency of democracy) and green features (increased concern for the environment).
Of course depending on how you feel about the spread of U.S. culture or our military presence around the world?you may think imperialist architecture is appropriate.
Of course depending on how you feel about the spread of U.S. culture or our military presence around the world?you may think imperialist architecture is appropriate.
- 6,775
When I went to see Chipperfield & Benjamin last fall(?), they were strongly hinting that the expansion might also include the removal of that ghastly South expansion from the 60's(?).
However, after seeing the latest update, I'm not so sure.
There is another lecture coming up, I think perhaps May 4th.
However, after seeing the latest update, I'm not so sure.
There is another lecture coming up, I think perhaps May 4th.
- 154
jefferson wrote: ... Of course depending on how you feel about the spread of U.S. culture or our military presence around the world?you may think imperialist architecture is appropriate.
Wow! Now we have architectural critique from a leftist/socialist perspective! Please! Spare us all the psuedo-sociologic gobbledygook.
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:When I went to see Chipperfield & Benjamin last fall(?), they were strongly hinting that the expansion might also include the removal of that ghastly South expansion from the 60's(?).
However, after seeing the latest update, I'm not so sure.
There is another lecture coming up, I think perhaps May 4th.
^ Is it possible to see the latest updates online?
Jeff, well said..
The "imperialism architecture" comments were enough to make me projectile vomit on the screen. Maybe your comments are a call for us to just TEAR down the old domineering/ egocentric design of Gilbert. How DARE Gilbert emulate the architecture of Europe (colonizing jerks) or of the birth place of democracy itself.. Maybe we should tear down all of the imperialistic buildings in st louis as well as the US and plant trees to remember the "victims" of the US's harsh rule around the world..
The "transparancy" of democracy.. please show me a better system..
The "imperialism architecture" comments were enough to make me projectile vomit on the screen. Maybe your comments are a call for us to just TEAR down the old domineering/ egocentric design of Gilbert. How DARE Gilbert emulate the architecture of Europe (colonizing jerks) or of the birth place of democracy itself.. Maybe we should tear down all of the imperialistic buildings in st louis as well as the US and plant trees to remember the "victims" of the US's harsh rule around the world..
The "transparancy" of democracy.. please show me a better system..
Politics aside, I'd take "Imperialism Architecture" any day over anything the Fascists or the Communists ever built.
- 6,775
Expat wrote:The Central Scrutinizer wrote:When I went to see Chipperfield & Benjamin last fall(?), they were strongly hinting that the expansion might also include the removal of that ghastly South expansion from the 60's(?).
However, after seeing the latest update, I'm not so sure.
There is another lecture coming up, I think perhaps May 4th.
^ Is it possible to see the latest updates online?
Not that I know of. And I need to correct myself - the next lecture on the topic is Tuesday, May 9th at 7:00, at the museum.
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Not that I know of. And I need to correct myself - the next lecture on the topic is Tuesday, May 9th at 7:00, at the museum.
Does anyone know if it will be aired on TV? Channel 9? Local Access?
And from what I remember - he mentioned not really a 'tear down' of the 1960s expansion - but rather a reworking. He said it is very hard to get into the expansion area - so he wants to improve access to all that if offers - including the library on the 3rd floor that barely anyone knows about.
- 6,775
tbspqr wrote:The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Not that I know of. And I need to correct myself - the next lecture on the topic is Tuesday, May 9th at 7:00, at the museum.
Does anyone know if it will be aired on TV? Channel 9? Local Access?
And from what I remember - he mentioned not really a 'tear down' of the 1960s expansion - but rather a reworking. He said it is very hard to get into the expansion area - so he wants to improve access to all that if offers - including the library on the 3rd floor that barely anyone knows about.
I doubt it. I don't think the first one was.
You may be right. Maybe it was just wishfull thinking on my part!
J City, Whether or not you want to acknowledge it, there was a debate at the time as to whether this was appropriate architecture for a modern democracy (with St. Louis hero Louis Sullivan being one of the main proponents of the view that it was not), and this debate had a surprising lack of projectile vomiting. I was only pointing out this debate to perhaps shed some light on what David Chipperfield may have meant when he said the original building reflected the attitudes of the early 20th century and the new addition will reflect the attitudes of our century; and to point out why the new wing will probably not be a simple replica of the original building. The fact that there is a debate does not mean it?s not a beautiful building (for the record, it is).
Also, I resent your implication that I would somehow want to tear down (TEAR down, as you say) the original Cass Gilbert building, nowhere did I remotely come close to saying this, and it?s a really dishonest way to try and make a point.
I threw in this lighthearted comment (see the wink?) at the end because I was sure someone would reply with their ironic view that the US was an empire?blah, blah, blah. I was just trying to head off some criticism, but it looks like I provoked people in the opposite direction?should have known better.
Also, I resent your implication that I would somehow want to tear down (TEAR down, as you say) the original Cass Gilbert building, nowhere did I remotely come close to saying this, and it?s a really dishonest way to try and make a point.
Of course depending on how you feel about the spread of U.S. culture or our military presence around the world?you may think imperialist architecture is appropriate.
I threw in this lighthearted comment (see the wink?) at the end because I was sure someone would reply with their ironic view that the US was an empire?blah, blah, blah. I was just trying to head off some criticism, but it looks like I provoked people in the opposite direction?should have known better.
I'm just curious as to why you term it "imperialist" architecture. There is no such style. You could perhaps call the president's house in India (originally designed as a palace for the Raj governor) or Saigon's city hall as imperialist, but an art museum in St. Louis? That just doesn't make any sense.
- 85
Gilbert is one of my favorite architects - Woolworth building, St. L public library are both gems - but he also had some really creepy ideas. He was, for instance, a HUGE admirer of Mussolini. According to historian michael Kammen, Il Duce was a major inspiration for Gilbert's U.S. Supreme Court Building. How's that for irony.
Personally, I find the Art Museum pretty oppressive.
Personally, I find the Art Museum pretty oppressive.
jefferson,
I wouldn't worry about either of their opinions, as they both were clearly overreacting. Switch to decaf guys, yeesh.
I wouldn't worry about either of their opinions, as they both were clearly overreacting. Switch to decaf guys, yeesh.
oh Jefferson formerly stl555 and trent.. obviously , or OBVIOUSLY as I might say, I'm sure you're fans of the building and don't really think you'd want it torn down. My "overreaaction" was to your statement about "imperialist" architecture. I just don't understand the apologetic liberal rhetoric regarding structures that epitomize the peak in quality of US architecture. I'd take the Met or SLAM over any museum built within the last 80 years. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of more "subdued" structures that are not brandishing swords ready to colonize the world, such as the Pulizter and the Guggenheim in New York. Anyway, good discussion. back to my original point, I think the SLAM should rebuild the temorary structures that sat on either side of the main building.
- 154
Has anyone looked at the kinds of buildings Chipperfield has done? I checked his site, and it looks like all he does is boxes - glass and concrete boxes. If you love boxes, this is your man.
Personally, I think they could have found someone with real imagination and talent. Then again, the new Art Museum box(es) will fit nicely with the Sam Fox art box at WU, and the Pulitzer bunker and Mus. of Contemporary Art boxes in midtown. I'm sure others will disagree violently.
Personally, I think they could have found someone with real imagination and talent. Then again, the new Art Museum box(es) will fit nicely with the Sam Fox art box at WU, and the Pulitzer bunker and Mus. of Contemporary Art boxes in midtown. I'm sure others will disagree violently.
- 466
well, architecture is subjective, and not everyone will like everything. there will always be someone objecting to whatever is being built. we do this all the time with the bottle district and the new stadium.
i for one am glad they when with this guy. everytime i go to kc and i see the disaster that the expansion has gone there because they went with a guy who was the hot thing at the time. it didn't matter who was in the competition, they pick holl becuase he was holl. it just seems like he felt like he could do anything and get away with it. these are the types a debates we have here in school. we can also say, going back to what i said eariler, since the museaum is a place of ideas, and a forum to display them, let the building be a place to help facilitate this. if the new building is just like the old, then there is no advancement of idea. there is nothing stimulating about it. plus the ability now adays to build like the current building is a pipe dream. you will never find the craftsmen to do the detailing like that nor would there be a enough money to pay the 5 or 6 people still alive to do this work.
i for one am glad they when with this guy. everytime i go to kc and i see the disaster that the expansion has gone there because they went with a guy who was the hot thing at the time. it didn't matter who was in the competition, they pick holl becuase he was holl. it just seems like he felt like he could do anything and get away with it. these are the types a debates we have here in school. we can also say, going back to what i said eariler, since the museaum is a place of ideas, and a forum to display them, let the building be a place to help facilitate this. if the new building is just like the old, then there is no advancement of idea. there is nothing stimulating about it. plus the ability now adays to build like the current building is a pipe dream. you will never find the craftsmen to do the detailing like that nor would there be a enough money to pay the 5 or 6 people still alive to do this work.
- 6,775
Jeff Vanderlou wrote:Personally, I think they could have found someone with real imagination and talent.
Luckily, they did.
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Jeff Vanderlou wrote:Personally, I think they could have found someone with real imagination and talent.
Luckily, they did.
Or so we shall see. But from the interview I saw with him - he seemed to have it well thought out and the pool they picked from - he definately had the best design in my humble opinion.
- 6,775
tbspqr wrote:The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Jeff Vanderlou wrote:Personally, I think they could have found someone with real imagination and talent.
Luckily, they did.
Or so we shall see. But from the interview I saw with him - he seemed to have it well thought out and the pool they picked from - he definately had the best design in my humble opinion.
After tonight's lecture, one thing is clear - they got the right guy. I really liked what he had to say. And I think he nailed the site plan. Which, of course, wasn't "official", but I think they pretty much know what they want to do. And it is good.
Anyone have notes or know more in detail what was said... website? transcript? I really would like to know what the plans are for this awesome project....
- 6,775
tbspqr wrote:Anyone have notes or know more in detail what was said... website? transcript? I really would like to know what the plans are for this awesome project....
They were filming it to be shown later this month on HEC. (Looks like it might be on several times in the next week. Search for "Community Conversation" here: http://www.hectv.org/listing.asp)
We didn't see a building design. That will come in the fall. What we saw was more of how the building might be situated on the site.
A couple of points:
1) Chipperfield hates the existing south expansion (who doesn't?). He trys to be diplomatic, but it is obvious that he would prefer it not be there.
2) If he builds anything close to what he showed last night, the expansion will also be on the south side of the museum.
3) He talked about the existing Cass Gilbert building and how it was never designed to be an art museum, so it has some short comings.
4) There will likely be stairs put into the sculpture hall that will lead down to a "lower sculpture hall" that would extend out beneath what is now the south approach to the museum (next to the existing south expansion). This will tie the existing south expansion with the new expansion, underground. Although it was hard to tell, but part of this "lower sculpture hall" might be above ground. I think this idea (if I am understanding it correctly) is brilliant. Plus I would imagine it would get rid of that silly fountain in the middle of the sculpture hall.
5) While long term the existing south expansion could be torn down and replaced, or at least given a new facade, short term he is looking at perhaps removing the 1 story part of it that is closest to Cass Gilbert. In conjuction with what I tried to describe in #4, this could create a sculpture garden that is 3-4 times larger than the existing one.
6) There will be a "substantial" car park (Chipperfield is from England) underneath the new expansion. From the elevations they showed (assuming I looked at them correctly), it could be as much as 3 stories deep.
7) There will likely be more in the way of landscaping and gardens in the rear of the museum, around the two expansions.
8- The existing parking lots on the immediate south east side are gone. That is basically where the expansion will sit.
I'll try to think of more...
Sounds exciting. I agree, it sounds like this guy has a good idea of what is needed in the space.
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:
He talked about the existing Cass Gilbert building and how it was never designed to be an art museum
I thought it was originally The Palace of Fine Arts at the World's Fair?
- 1,054
Huzzah, getting rid of current parking lots for underground parking now that is a good use of park land!