urbanSTL

I'd like to see Chipperfield do something like they did with the Housing Villaverde in Madrid:







-RBB

That's a good example of materiality alone expressing the local vernacular, instead of a typology. Is that what you like about it: simple, yet expressive of it's function? ouch, architecture school flashback. It's interesting how the strategy of puncturing the wall can show different use, depending on frequency: the vertical circulation at the right end, versus the living quarters to the right.

Architects these days love the monotone box, even here. However, the strategy of organizing simple massings to not overshadow the artwork is a solid one.

I can't help but note the comparison between the picture posted by RBB and the photo of the Wainwright building under his name. They diffinately share some similar qualities. Interesting how architecture progresses.



Let's hope Chipperfield comes up with an equally interesting counterpoint to Cass Gilbert's original building.

What kind of counterpart do you want Framer? Something that looks like that Red Monstrocity, something like the KC boring white walls, or something like the WashU art building (the new one)? Or maybe you would prefer none of those. I know I dont "want" something like those. I dont understand people or most architects these days...



"Hey check out my new idea. Its made entirely of stainless steal, and it does not have a single straight line or right corner..."



"Hey, check out MY new idea... Its made entirely of concrete, and there are no exterior windows..."



Frankly, neither of those ideas are new anymore, and if the Art Museum got something like that we would appear to be almost behind the trends and copying everyone else. Thats all anyone does anyway.



What I want is a nice, classy design, that blends or mirrors the original architecture. I would prefer Robert A. M. Stern to do it because he is sooo good at doing such things.



From Stern's website...



"Our firm's practice is premised on the belief that the public is entitled to buildings that do not, by their very being, threaten the aesthetic and cultural values of the buildings around them. We do not believe that any one style is appropriate to every building and every place. We do believe in the continuity of tradition and strive in our work to create order out of the often chaotic present by entering into a dialogue with the past and with the spirit of the places in which we build."



God I love that.

"hey, check out my idea, I copy copies of classical architecture."

These are useless arguments. Preferring a "look" says nothing for the architecture. Being mimetic of the building you're putting an addition onto is whimping out. As well, making a box for the sake of making a box is too.

There are hundreds of considerations for an architect to take, with at least two good answers to each one. And each time, the question "why?" appears.

For instance, the strategy for Cass Gilbert's building is straight-forward: a grand space augmented by smaller galleries. The heirarchy of spaces is obvious, and is furthermore articulated by the exterior treatment--the tripartite facade, the symmetry, and so on. You could put anything in there. It would make a wicked summer home. A school, per chance.

So what would the architect adding to this work with? There's a rigor with classical architecture that's tough to f**k with. Simply carrying the major lines into the next building's facade opens up a whole new can of corn. Lost is the symmetry; there's now a juxtaposition between old and new that has to be remedied somehow. Materiality is quite often a solution. Hence the glass and concrete boxes. I could go on.

By the way, there's a sectional perspective on Robert Stern's website for the African American museum in New York. That, my friends, is pure architecture.

I'll throw down my controversial and WAY OT post of the day:

I'd exchange the arch for the old riverfront (and the 40 blocks or so that went with it) in a heartbeat.



There I said it. Just my opinion of course.



actually - I always wished they would have just built the arch OVER the old riverfront.



again ... my opinion. But for the love of God people - we lost the site of Stagger Lee's infamous shooting ... I think.

The arch didn't raze the old riverfront. It was that dude. The lawyer guy.

And I think the Stagger Lee site was conveniently relocated to some bar on Tucker. The Arch over the old riverfront would be a cool photoshop job.



I agree with CS for that point: Innovative advances in building materials are going to redefine how we design.

what lawyer guy? I thought they razed 40 blocks to clear room for the arch and our ever necessary "green space"

I think there had been a plan by some as early as the 1910's to raze the riverfront. Some wealthy lawyer was head of that. Maybe someone could clear that up...I could be totally wrong.

I think a big problem with people's perceptions of buildings, old and new, is that everything is lumped into some kind of typology, like what you'd see at a Barnes and Noble in the architecture section. Unfortunately, I think architects are far too eager to cater to that. Example: the curved wall. How would a good designer incorporate that? Possibly as a function, maybe to soften the edge of a room acoustically, or something like that. Whatever it is, it is used as an architectural device, as a way of solving a problem. What quite often happens, is these "ringers" are put in as jazz...ways to visually liven a building, solely to set it apart. So these items become buzz words: "Curve", "Classical lines", "retro neo modern" and so on.

Think of it like this (and realize that this is of course ONE take on it): If a wall does one thing, kick it out. If it does three things, leave it in, and if it does two things, find a third thing for it to do.

I believe you youngsters are talking about Luther Ely, whose name graces the park between the Arch and the Old Courthouse.

oh, that's too good.

I definitely wish they had kept the buildings and built the arch over them. Or maybe, they could have built the arch on the east side of the river, but to give up the arch in favor of the blocks, I'd still take the arch. It has given us an international symbol. I'd say we have a top 3 recognizable skyline in the country if not one of the top 10 in the world. I'd guarantee you that few could recognize Atlanta's or Phoenix. Indianapolis KC? forget it.

They're finally ready to unveil the design of the new addition. This Tuesday, 7 PM, in the museum's auditorium.

I just dont know what to expect... but I wait with bated breath.



something like this maybe....







No, probably something like this, only less impressive...







That is... if you consider KC's lighted boxes impressive. I love Milwaukee's Calatrava art museum though. So cool. Its all been discussed already though. I think cement slabs would look just great behind the current cement slab addition we already have.

Here are some of the renderings of the expansion.















Source: http://publicbroadcasting.net/kwmu/news ... ectionID=1

Are those sposed to be trees? I think it looks rather nice. Simple. But nice.

Ahh yes, the Disguise-o-Building Design Package. This is what you use when you need to build a large building, don't have the resources to design and build something really impressive, and nobody wants to see the alternative...



Nice that they are putting some parking underground though...

Maybe for the price there weren't too many options? This just strikes me as the result of too much input. If you ask too many people, have the public comment too much, you end up with something really bland since someone will have objected to everything else. Just my humble opinion. It's unobtrusive, if that's what they were going for . . .

Very nice. Understated, but ellegant. I like it.



I'm confused by the first rendering, though. It looks like the new building is entirely behind the original Cass Gilbert building, yet the second rendering and the plan clearly show it alongside the original, with an entrance facing Art Hill. What gives?

What architectural movement is that supposed to be from?



At least there is underground parking.