urbanSTL

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

jlblues wrote:^What is your sense of the plan for the facade of the new building? Are they trying to blend/copy the Cass Gilbert, or are they going for modern/contrast? I suppose there is very little chance of getting something really ground-breaking and universally recognizable along the lines of Calatrava's Milwaukee Art Museum expansion or Gehry's Bilbao Museum.

They will absolutely not try to copy Cass Gilbert. It will be some combination of glass, steel, concrete, etc. In other words, modern. And no, it won't be a Bilbao or Milwaukee. Check out his other work here: http://www.davidchipperfield.com/

Great news! St. Louis will finally get to showcase its progressive side by being original and contrasting an older bricks and mortar musuem with a modern steel and glass building. This is really groundbreaking!



I guess I can't really complain if I haven't seen the renderings yet, but I have a feeling that this is going to be another glass and steel box with no character of its own. Why does modern always have to be simple lines and smooth surfaces? I am not asking for a replication of the Cass Gilbert, but it is okay to borrow from some of the older styles. The Barcelona Sagrada Familia is considered modernist, but it has more in common with cathedrals than a contemporary art musuem. What would a gothic-art deco museum look like? Probably a lot more interesting than a glass box attached at to an older museum (let's not lcopy the Missouri History musuem).

There are quite a few David Chipperfield fans here, but I'm not one of them. I've seen his other works and they look unimaginative and modernist-boxy. I hope he comes up with a great design for our museum, but I think it will be just more concrete/glass boxes like his other work, and not much different than those bland concrete/glass art boxes in grand center and at W.U.

Expat wrote:Since La Sagrada Familia was started in the 1880s and still isn't finished. I don't know what it has to do with today's Modern or our art museum. Bastiat, I have no doubt that you know the difference between Gaudi's Modernista and today's Modern. La Sagrada Familia is one of the most amazing places I have ever seen. And I love everything Gaudi did, the houses, Park Guell, etc. But, I don't get your point.



Having said all that, I am not overly impressed with Chipperfield either. But, I am not against modern. I hope he surprises us with something tremendous.

My point is that something new and original does not have to be a steel and glass box. This concept is original, if the year is 1950. It is okay to have to detail and ornamentation opposed to solely smooth surfaces. I am not opposed to "modern" architecture (the American Zinc building on Broadway is a favorite of mine), but let's allow some new styles and innovation. In 100 years from now will steel and glass boxes still be cutting edge and "modern"? I hope for our architectural sake that this sort of stagnation is not allowed. Progress should not be confined to an architectural style that rose to dominance in mid-20th century Western hemisphere.



New architecture should not have to make a clean break with the past (era earlier than 1940) in order to merit attention. Combining styles and traditional building techniques and materials of the past with newer ones should be not be scorned. Why should stone beau arts buildings, etc be relegated to the past? I think this has something to do with the triumph of democracy and egalitarian ideals. Ornamentation and grand scale seem to many to be relics of the era of monarchy and aristocracy. Buildings, like people, should all be equal and not strive to outdo one another. Ornamentation, etc was seen to be akin to priveleges and attire that separated the social classes. I'm not saying that is true for all buildings or even most, but it does seem to be an undercurrent. This can even be seen hundreds of years ago with the French Revolution where its fanatics called for the leveling of church steeples because have a building so much taller than the others would go against the idea of equality (the Cathedral at Chartres had this planned; luckily it never happened!).



I am not saying that the old style should be duplicated, but it can and should serve as inspiration for new construction. The Duomo was inspired by the Classical styles, yet it was ground breaking.



I don't know if that rant answers your question...

When every (and I mean EVERY) new modern inovated unique building is a glass building working in tandem with older structures (see the new Penn Station, see the downtown Library expansion, see the Morgan Libary, see the list go on and on) the how unique is it? I agree with others that if you want to really have St. Louis step out of the box then take a look at the past and propose a structure that is a different modern take on a neo-classical Cass Gilbert structure.