To all of you attending the “Aspen Ideas Festival”, you might want to re-adjust your reality. Who is calling the “starchitect” pompous? You all reek of pompousness by the very nature of your forum - Aspen?! Yeah, cities shouldn’t waste tax payer money on architectual jerk offs like Geary, but then again, maybe next year you can save the money you spent on your Aspen boondoggle and just debate this nonsense on-line like the rest of us. And as for Geary himself: Dude, leave the talking head circuit if you can’t take the heat!

Perhaps you should learn how to spell before trashing Frank Gehry.

Fred Kent is as pompous as you they come…the non-designer designer. Just take a look back in time at the old school “starchitects” and you can’t dispute visionaries…let go of the benign notion of contextualism and all of the rhetoric it brings with it.

Fred good for you …
The architect entire focus is the building, the placemaker focus is the people
breathtaking architecture cannot be conducive to conversations. Literally.
the architect’s client is the builing’s owner and its residents , not the public, inside instead of outside. A building is to enclose , a place is to expose.
Generally there is not one name for the designer of a place … It is a layered experience over time ..
And then there are the models, still a major selling tool for architects, a tool that should be banned: it delivers beautiful buildings when viewed from an altitude of 1,000 ft. Let’s hope that virtual reality technology will be adopted rapidly by the industry and will finally chage the way buildigns are envisionned athe street level.

are you serious?

Well . . . . Kent is pompous. It took him nearly two minutes to ask a question you summarized in one sentence here. But, Kent is also right. Gehry has often ignored opportunities to apply his software to sites and interiors. And he must have gone to the beach that day they talked about context when he was in school.

What a waste of time. What is PPS after here? Relevance? Attention? Why challenge a man like this. You only make yourself look the fool. Why be a jerk?

This is a valid question. Gehry is not the person to ask. His niche, whether novelty or timeless, has helped in his success. He has helped us question tradition but , like most “starchitects” he deals mostly in the design of objects in space - no context. Most modernists of the last century flipped a bird towards the urban fabric, so this is not a new problem. The problem I see is students also turning their back on a cohesive fabric and designing sculpture, not architecture.

Placemaking needs friends, not enemies. Kent’s question should have been directed (tactfully) to the people who commissioned his work and neglected to include placemaking as a deliverable.

Frank Gehry sucks, his death will be celebrated.

As to the simple question that Fred Kent asked, I would have answered that starchitects iconic buildings could enhance Public Space as long as the Public Space is designed by someone who understands the dimensions of those places and their uses and the starchitect understands the relationship of his building to the public place. The collaboration of Urban Designer and starchitect could produce a great result.
If FG was the starchitect, I doubt there would be collaboration.

This invites the conversation on “Architecture as Art” and where the fine line is between beautiful, meaningful and functional buildings placed thoughtfully within a city-scape and (sometimes) large pieces of sculptural architecture (or architectural sculpture?) that stand alone - beautiful, not necessarily functional within the city-scape, yet ART. Gehry is an artist. He has built amazing buildings in his long career. At his age, and level of impatience, perhaps he will decline the next offer for a debate and simply stick with presentations of his thoughts, ideas and incredible body of work.

i wasn’t at the aspen event to see what happened but maybe the brush-off has something to do with the annoying formulas that groups like PPS use to create “successful” public places. Obviously there’s a faith among “starchitects” and anyone else with an ounce of creativity that successul public places require originality and inventiveness to balance an understanding of history. It’s not clear to me whether Fred Kent used the word “starchitects” or “iconic” in his question but why pose these at odds with public space?! Seems unnecessarily provocative considering how many amazing contemporary public spaces we owe to designers of international reputation.

An architectural work can be judged on many levels. I understand Gehry’s opinion… he creates amazing buildings (even though the style seems no longer innovative). This is something city planners need to realize. Put the expectation on architects to create or enhance public spaces and discuss how that can be done. If they can’t achieve that, then they should not be hired. No one is above that expectation. All in all, I believe the Disney Theater is a failure in Los Angeles. It’s quite a complex, but when you factor in the degeneration of urban renewal, I’d say it’s a net negative. Don’t blame Gehry, though. He did what he was contracted to do. Blame the city planners for looking at that design and saying that the public spaces were even remotely acceptable.

The navel-gazing and self-congratulating the architecture profession has engaged in for the past three decades is an amazing story of arrogance. It is also, I would suggest, an abrogation of professional responsibility to the world at large when a building’s “fashion statement” is hailed as more important than how the building measurably improves the overall urban, social, cultural and environmental characteristics of the world ordinary people have to deal with.

The systemic consequences of design decisions regarding buildings and public and private spaces they create remain poorly understood. I hope that these debates encourage Schools of Architecture to place a great deal more emphasis on developing the quantitative skills sets (e.g. system dynamics, scientific research and engineering know-how) that are required for developing an evidence basis for design and planning decisions.

Couple those basic quantitative skills with innate design flair and talent of those on the road to becoming an architect, and then we might begin to see many more urban design and building design projects that actually work.

It’s impossible to create safer cities without design professionals designing with relationships in mind. Relationships to adjacencies, neighbourhoods and a 4-6 block radius. There are many situations where buildings are built in our cities where the architect has never been to the city or the site they are building on. Structures that have no relationship to their immediate surroundings are disregarded by the people who live and work around them. The very people we want to take partial ownership of and defend the building when the owner is not around.

Iconic structures that do not take context into account become anonymous around their exteriors; especially after business hours and this void can be taken up by less desirable activities and even offenders.

It’s the city that has absolute control over how they are developed and designed and responsibility should start there for holding design and development accountable. It should also seek to involve the immediate community at the design table as a valued partner instead of just going through the motions of holding the required community meetings to satisfy a building ordinance or by-law.

We do know how to design better and safer without limiting creative process. It should be a collaborative effort and not done in isolation.

Usually it takes a few messages before a comment forum devolves into name-calling vitriol, so congratulations Joanna for getting us there so fast!

Architecture by its nature creates public space: a wall goes up, there’s now a wall to the outside as well as the inside. When the inside and outside disconnect, neither works. It’s so elementary I can’t imagine anyone could argue it.

Are we all taking this stuff far too serious? Where is the humour?
I have on & off days. I occasionally appear to ignore what some people say because I have nothing to say/reply. No doubt some folks might have their feelings hurt by that - but…

We live within the context of the whole.

Thank you for bringing the essential question of how will we live together, rather than just as possibly beautiful, disjointed, and ultimately life-less, separate parts.

The true experience of city is our interconnectedness.

It seems to me that the recent Festival of Ideas could have been the perfect opportunity to share the experience of many years in the business and succes and admittedly failures. It is unfortunate that inflated egos got in the way and left a negative lasting impression(at least on James Fallows).I have found in my tenure of planning public places that negative comments or criticism may be more enlightening than praise. You gotta take the good with the bad. Never dismissive, people are entitled to their opinion….even if we don’t like it.
I was not in Aspen, but courtesy in public is always the intelligent way to behave….for both the audience and speaker. Too bad the fresh ideas became mired in rude behavior…

If

the worst thing about buildings:

they are designed by architects

the worst thing about architects:

they have no interest in people or use only in design

the best things about places:

buildings that people enjoy using and don’t get lost trying to find a way in and out off.

Frank Gehry indeed seems to conceive himself as an Artist with a Capital A. Such trivial concerns as relating to context or the public realm are apparently beneath him. In that case, he should only build in places where there is no urban context–locations surrounded by miles of open fields perhaps. Or maybe in places that are willing to let a Gehry obliterate the context, as in Bilbao. Disney Hall does not fit either of these situations, it is in the heart of the nation’s second largest city–adjacent to its civic center. Gehry’s arrogance at the forum sounds inappropriate, but it’s the buildings that are really arrogant.

It seems to me that Blog “discussions” tend to showcase why we should be concerned about having really good public spaces.

Because we read other people’s thoughts and write our own, we think we have really communicated. (Same with Talk Radio)

I don’t think people would take the same tone in person that they do online. The level of vitriol we feel free to unleash online creates just as negative a dynamic as good old Frank Gehry demonstrated at this session.

People are disrespectful and dismissive of each other in blog discussions. The shared understanding that can be developed through real dialogue between people with different opinions never seems to show up in online comments.

We need real places more than we know. Same goes for real dialogue.

A more clear question with less attitude might have elicited a more thoughtful response from an obviously prickly celebrity not use to public criticism.

I hope Kent’s poor manners don’t overshadow his trenchant critique of Gehrys’ exterior public spaces.

@ Kent

I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry as I read your adventure with Gehry. What makes it so odd is that 39 years ago; I was commissioned by the Board of the Art Gallery Of Ontario (AGO) to design a sculpture for the front of the AGO. Yes, this is the same site of Gehry’s latest “tin billboard.”

The Board’s rational for my future sculpture was to attract and draw people into Canada’s most prodigious (pretentious) art gallery; that is, attract people who normally would never set foot into the AGO. The Board was to choose one of the four concepts. Here’s one of the concepts that I presented (for your amusement):
http://www.publicopenspacedesign101.com/blog/Entries/2008/5/19_ARTISTs_VERSUS_THE_CREATIVE_CLASS.html

At no point in my five or six meetings with the Board; did the Board ever concern itself with the Public Open Space - the streetscape - that ran along the entire northern facade of the AGO. The AGO’s prime concern was to get customers into the art museum. Did Gehry fulfill the Board’s mission - the Board’s design to incorporate all of the Public Space in front of the museum? You bet! The AGO has commandeered the entire streetscape - the entire Public Open Space running adjacent to the AGO for it’s own purposes. Neither the AGO’s Board, Director or architect (Gehry) get “IT”! It’s “The Public Open Space Stupid”. Aside from commandeering the streetscape; they set up every possible barrier, to keep people away from the front facade of the AGO (and the entrance). Its “The EDGE STUPID” (do they know what an EDGE is?)

It’s ironic that the world’s foremost city designer and renovator, Jan Gehl, spoke in Toronto a couple of months ago, to a standing room crowd of over 500 people at 3 pm on an ordinary Wednesday afternoon. In his introduction, Gehl briefly touched on the notion “That Form Must Follow Function”; which Gehl then clearly demostrated hardly ever happens when architects, landscape architects, traffic engineers and the Elite get together. The above, all love to squat on and usurp and then destroy Public Open Space. You can hear Gehl talk about the lack of Function when it comes to buildings and city design at:
http://www.whatpriceisgoodinformation.com/Jan_Gehl_DX_2009/Jan_Gehl_Part_1.mp4

Form and space are dialogue, not dichotomy. Conversation, not diatribe. Constructive duality that invites instead of incites.

Give Gehry a break though - the air is a little thin in Aspen.

Asking Gehry to change the habits (and professional practices) of a lifetime at age eighty may be a little too much to expect. And for him to admit to any flaws that his building may have created is probably unlikely too.

Perhaps Kent’s comments would be better directed at the ‘next generation’ of architects. Having said that, any publicity that underlines the relevance of place-planning when designing buildings has to be applauded.

It seems absurd to me - as a lifelong expert on the use of buildings and public spaces - that any architect could dispute the necessity of ensuring that public spaces work as an effective part of every scheme.

Whether or not Mr. X or Mr. Y is pompous is of small importance. Even saints are often hard to get along with .. what of it? The interesting question is whether or not striking, bold architecture is in conflict with the creation of welcoming spaces for people on the street. The avant-garde (post-modern, etc.) scorn as authoritarian attempts to reign in their creative expression. Christopher Alexandrians (such as Nikos Salingaros or PPS) scorn as anti-human post-modern grandiosity and indifference to context. This tension is healthy. It becomes dangerous only if one side should ‘win,’ because both the creatively new and the contextually fitting are equally needed. The problem with (e.g.) some of Gehry’s work is not so much its ‘look’ as its scale and lack of relationship to what was there already. Usually when modern and post-modern architecture is hideous it is not so much the fault of the design as the inaptness of the scale and/or the absence of a harmonious relationship with what surrounds it. That is what creates its emotional coldness. A Mies van der Rohe-type “office park” for example, is typically awful, but the same building-type, if blended into a row of skyscrapers of similar size (but varied design) has an entirely different feel. Lest this statement boil down to a banal ‘let’s all be friends,’ I will add that it is in almost every case a lack of relatedness that cripples our public spaces, and to this extent the cocky star architects truly do need to learn from tradition.

I wonder if it’s clear enough to everyone (architects, city authorities, users, etc.) what we mean when we say we want public spaces to “work”

Gehry seemed to really believe that his buildings “work”.

Maybe talking about “good” public space is not specific enough for getting the results we want.

Placemaking is one the most important aspects of any modern urban project, and it remains neglected. Kent was provocative, but I can forgive that, knowing where he has been and what those of his ilk aspire to do. They want to make cities better for people that live in them.

I’m saddened by any attempt to simply lay accountability for good context and better placemaking at the feet of the building owner or the municipality. This is a total cop-out, and an embarrassment to the profession. If the architectural professional cannot aspire to merge the best of art and context then why would one expect a client or municipality to do so? Many will want to debate which is more important, but clearly any practitioner could by necessity assume a personal responsibility for vigorously assisting the client in being a better citizen. I would expect that clients would be much more pleased with their building in the long run and would take pride in the opportunity to improve the quality of life in the surrounding area if assisted by their architect in these matters. After all, the exterior is really an extension of the interior for those that use the building.

Many like Kent have spent years studying the mishaps and follies of architecture for the sake of architecture or poorly executed projects relative to the unnecessary decline of the surround area. What Kent has started with this question accidentally leads to a higher level: That it is the profession’s responsibility to assist the community and the client to create wonderful buildings with solid context and good placemaking elements. I am positive a man of great genius like Mr. Gehry could accomplish both with little impact on his art, just as a man with the passion and focus of Kent can help merge the two. The need to do so is incumbent upon the industry and to imply they are mutually exclusive in some situations is ridiculous.

MM

Although the wording of Smackdown is disturbing, and is total degrading it to some sideshow or fist fight, questions have to be asked and answers sought. Dismissing questions does not bring about solutions, nor does a smackdown.

For the past 60 years at least, architects as well as landscape architects have had an enormous problem when designing anything. The FORM is what their salivating is all about; both by the Elite and the architects (and landscape architects). The latter simply don’t get the idea of FUNCTION.

The 80 yr. old British/Swedish architect Erskine was asked to define architect. His reply - “someone who loves people!”. I haven’t seen much love coming from architects over the last 60 years.

I would suggest that Kent get Jan Gehl (74 years old) to debate Gehry. Or hire me to do a documentary contrasting Gehry and Gehl. I’ll do it at cost.

Sounds like Gehry got it precisely correct - a self-promoter looking for a moment for attention.

The discussion is not very well framed.

Fred Kent chose to pick a fight with a someone, a designer, who has had to fight at every step of his professional career. As with star anybodies, and especially for a designer, to even be noticed is difficult, to be noted is rare, and to be respected enough to be asked questions even rarer.

I fully support excellent public space and the process of placemaking however iconic architecture is not the issue. Iconic architecture fills the role with the context of a whole city as much as a focal point fills a role in a site. As such, the role of the designer (architect, landscape architect, artist) to give US a message about US is not something to be judged in the here and now. Our context changes, a site’s context changes and that message the designer will give us may just inform that change. If it is accurate or apropos it will become cherished, if it is comletely wrong it will be torn down or more likely just last long enough to become loved. Iconic architecture is not a panacea, but it can be a visual anchor.

Fred Kent, pick your fight with the people who flood home in automobiles to the suburbs on highways and the planners who encourage that and especially the bankers who will only fund suburban expansion. If low density automobile-oriented life is even partially resolved then any…any…urban space will be filled with people doing what people do and ‘Placemaking’ will be achieved. Being rude only sets a bad example.

Don’t bother trying to fight with fighters: Design is not easy.

Great places happen when a multitude of people centric activities converge, while iconic building worship could be one of these activities, most iconic buildings wouldn’t let all these other activities pollute the spaces around them and detract from the gallery spaces for viewing of the building. In fact most of the gallery spaces are designed so that they only have limited uses thus not allowing great people centric spaces with a wide variety of distracting and conflicting uses to emerge.

What is new about the tension between the hero and the community. It is a classic tale of the individual’s interests and success superceding the group’s. This architype helps define the major difference between the world view of Alaskan governors and that of community organizers. So it isn’t surprising to hear that a reporter is impressed with the fire you can kick up when you put strong proponents of each side in the same room. In my opinion, it is the overlay of complex meaning that comes with years of effective public use that makes a space great that is interesting to many. This process can be modeled and defined and promoted but not always easily put into a business plan. The payoff sometimes goes to the grandchildren of the creators. Some typical exceptions would be a space like Central Park - NYC where the adjacent property value increase returned many times over the initial investment. People are motivated by courtship, kinship and security and in my experience great spaces recognize all of these at once. Historic spaces and buildings, or in other words, culture telling its tale, is very effective in transmitting meaning, even if not completly understood or appreciated by all groups equally. Similarly, buildings and spaces speaking only an elite language will be understood as such.

Look up narcissistic personality disorder on the web.
A fertile realm for understanding the phenomenon of Starchitecture.

Apparently Gehry’s skin is thinner than the titanium he uses to blind people approaching his monstrosities…

His buildings are not iconic at all, but rather are the end result of pointless software development. He is this decades Walt Disney, building “modern, cutting edge” crap that will look tired, old and hopelessly outdated (it mostly already does…) in a few years time.

Like too many of his ilk, he has squandered a vast talent, but made a pot load of money doing it. So it goes in America today.

I found this through a parks coordinator in my neighborhood I was researching, Right now the global elite are building a high tech control grid prison and large open spaces that are not used and frequent places of muggings are right up there alley. What we need is American architecture place and ideas. We need large open spaces where people can meet and ideas are exchanged. The gold standard Halmark of a free society is the exchange of ideas and also clean running water and showers. What we need is more social spaces. The mall comes close but people only goto the mall to shop.

The inarticulate assumption of the question was a conclusion knocking Gehry. Do not knock all “star” architects because of Gehry, who has enough problems defending lawsuits and losing commissions.
Personally, I don’t admire Gehry’s work, but anyone would be offended by this childish. self-serving question.

It saddens me to read this. there is no right way or wrong way to build a place. Some mature over time, yet others can be instant hits. The nature of place making is optimism and effort. Lets not criticize! Lets help each other achieve our dreams in the best way the circumstances or the realities provide!

As a landscape architect and somewhat deciple of Fred Kent I know he was trying to start a thought process pointed toward his belief about a very important aspect to cities that is being lost with the advent of the automobile and star-chitecture. Basically the notion that that the architect is not the expert to dictate the use of space, but the user is the expert. This is appalling to most ego-centric architects and designers, but that is what Fred Kent advocates for, so he is far from pompous. He is an advocate for people and places. Gehry has famously said “I don’t do Context”, which is just about the most pompous thing an architect could say, much less believe and practice. Fred Kent founded PPS to continue and advance the studies of his mentor the venerable urbanist William Holly Whyte who was a observer of human behvior in public spaces, a sociologist, not a “designer”. Fred Kent would not say he was a designer and he states he does not want to be. Whyte and Kent’s goal was/ is to seek to find and what makes a space gathering places for people.

The Fred Kent question occurs at about 54 minutes into the talk and here is the link. http://www.aifestival.org/audio-video-library.php?menu=3&title=525&action=full_info&qclip=1

There is little question that the outide of Gehry’s buildings are sterile and devoid of life and people, which is what Fred Kent was getting at in so many words. The buildings Gehry designs are not places, but sculptures or objects to be gazed upon, used by few, and left. Thus, for the majority of the day it creates a black hole in the urban fabric and a missed opportunity in the public realm of a city. Perhaps even by design as I ahve found being a landscape architect that there is a notion that people and plants are detractors amongst some architects.

I think the question should have been worded more directly to let Gehry know what he was getting at…the actual question was way too esoteric. I think it was a somewhat whimpy challenge to be critical of Fred Kent. The point of the question is steel walls create no link to the area ouside the building and here is nothing to “do” there. The doors and entries are difficult to locate and there is no free flow from in to out and no “activating” features to the outdoor spaces. I think the proof is in the photos and visiting the building, however, what Fred Kent did not get to mention is that PPS often uses Bilbao as an example of a devoid space outside of a building. The user is afraid and uncomfortable. There has been documented increased crime and muggings after construction. I think Fred Kent knew the answer to his own question, having consulted on the issue for decades. I think he should have used examples of his experience cleaning up after other famous designers as proof to lend creedence to his question or the documented lack of use and increased muggings, but it was a lost opportunity. It then becomes a place that people actually use, enjoy and linger in our public realm. There is not doubt that thinking about this element is good for cities, quaility of life and business. Social ills in cities like homeless encampments, crime and grafitti are decreased or erased if we can put our finger on the “je ne se quoi” of what makes a place a place where other people want to linger and stay. Most people don’t think about this, what makes them stay or not stay, they just move on. I think sometimes designers think less about the concept. William Holly Whyte advocated for the drawing of people to place to avoid such ills and make cities livable. Whyte states “What attracts people most, it would appear, is other people”. The ulitmate point being thathow the public uses space, and would like to use space, should be the basis of the design. This is achieved by observation (in Whyte’s case, ground breaking studies using path analysis and time lapse photography) and asking the user. This is good stuff poeople, not to be dismissed.

Gehry is neither an artist nor a designer. He is a no talent, pretentious hack. His buildings look like a pile of space junk that crash landed where it does not belong. The real talent is in realizing that this earth was not put here for us to destroy. It’s beauty should be respected and complimented. And buildings should respect their place. A true artist can deliver a building that is artistically beautiful on it’s own as well as within context of it’s surroundings. We need to return to a time when form followed function.

As for what makes a place, you can spew any crap you want about how the future will tell or some other such pretention but the reality is, a place is made when people can relate on an organic level to their surroundings. Gehry’s garbage is hostile and unwelcoming and does not fulfill that most basic requirement. And it is also the stuff that makes people want to flee the city for a place less ugly.

I love this (well at least that Fred has put the question to him.)

I think there should be a SMACKDOWN challenge issued by all folks and organizations that support public space and livable streets. By answering a thoughtful inquiry with such disdain, he proves his design is all about him and not about the people he supposedly designing for.

I am all in favor of a weekly SMACKDOWN column! (Who’s next?!)

public spaces that are planned well welcome visitors with a sense of place and local flavor. this is what makes people come back and also the sense of place to its residence
keeps the local economy viable year round.
iconic architecture alone without a sense of place makes for empty public spaces and defeats the purpose of sense of place.

I totally applaud your observations about the current stark-itects. Their egos are as thick as pea soup and for the most part their designs just simply are unattractive. In many cases their buildings are both architectural and technical failures. A case in point is the newish Denver Art Museum. From my recent visit to DAM, I was amazed to find that the building has been pulling itself apart for months and is in the midst of a major re-construction effort. Now if only the architectural press had given as much attention to the failures as it did to the original design, then maybe the entire profession could have learned some valuable lessons. I complained in a letter to Ned Cramer of Architecture magazine about the problems at DAM, but he has ignored addressing the problem - maybe out of fear of offending one of the “stark-itects” or one of his advertisers.

“DAM-failings” would be a good topic for mister Kent and Fallows to take a look at and report on.

Also check out the blog of Randy Nishimura, President of the Southwestern Oregon Chapter of the AIA for more DAM discussions.

rnishimura@robertsonsherwood.com

Having grown up in New York City where the most imaginative building was Wright’s Guggenheim against a background of boring white square buildings and old tenements, I would love to have more of Frank Gehry’s funky innovative stuff in my city. True the city is changing for the better. Alot of goodies have been put up since 911 for the first time in decades. We are building more green and more imaginative.
But there’s only one Frank Gehry in the world. And if some of his success has gone to his head he has more than earned it. He is an original thinker, an artist as well as an architect, a genius. His buildings pour out onto the street like a jumble of fun. His contributions are countless.
And hey, sometimes things are not all about public space. It’s just about the building itself and that’s okay.

[...] - Mary, commenter at PPS.org [...]

Landscape architects and planners know how to create spaces well, maybe they should have a stronger roll in the design process? My assumption is that building architects are in complete control, thus their big egos and their reluctance to answer to criticism from people of other fields.

To Beryl - an iconic building that people want to be near to is a lot better than an iconic building that people want to stay away from. Why make a building that can only be enjoyed in photos?

The fact that James Fallows didn’t know who Fred Kent was and didn’t identify him by name is as disappointing to me as his last thirty seconds were with Frank Gehry’s dismissive gesture and the audience applause at Gehry’s reaction to Kent.

Gehry’s comment “You are a pompous man”…. You don’t have to be a psychoanalyst to know a classic projection when you hear one. Gehry gets “freaked out by petty annoyances”. Please! To ask a legitimate question of an architect and then have him proceed to characterize you as a person “intent on getting himself a pulpit.” or “marketing himself again at everyone’s expenses.” Please, spare us all this kind of insult!

When Gehry emailed Fallows “I apologize for offending you” he was moving closer to where he should be but not quite there yet. He should have just answered the question put to him by Kent kindly, thoughtfully, and professionally. He should thank Fred Kent for raising his consciousness and reminding him of the important human aspect of his work. People are listening to this and hoping to get insight and to learn from a discussion like this.

It seems to a lay person like me who had to look up the images of architecture by Gehry which made me think that they could be characterized as being from the Dr. Seuss School of Architecture (although I do like the look of the Sydney Opera House), that this is a man who serves clients, while I see Kent as a man who serves the public interest.

Our town, Oak Park, IL, famous for the cult of FLW, didn’t listen to Kent’s good counsel on open space/public space project. They knew better and, as a result, we have been left with a soulless downtown and we have been left with destruction and the loss of significant architectural structures in Downtown Oak Park and the loss of our one public space/mall in our main commercial area. Our current and last administration have done more damage to our architectural legacy here (the work of more than 100 architects) than any previous administration. What I have learned is never to be too sentimental on works of the past architects or future architects, developers will always have the last word. Ironically, now in Oak Park, some who have done real damage to landmarks have gone bankrupt in this economy. We, the people, deserve better than this. If they would have listened to Fred Kent’s worthwhile ideas, we would have had a downtown that served the public interest and not just the interest of a few business owners.

Fred Kent gave a seminar in Chgo a few years ago. I asked him what we do when the government takes away all of the street furniture. (So glad he answered me and didn’t name call.) It was my first such seminar. He had some great ideas. Didn’t the Tribune’s Barbara Brotman (8/3/09) give an example that what I said that day was true. She relates how Steve and Carrie, her neighbors created a Conversation Curve out in front of their house where most people have a front lawn. Recently, visiting Norwegian tourists asked if they could stop and rest and eat their bag lunches. They had come to visit the Frank Lloyd Wright Historic District. and they told her that they had been “dismayed by the scarcity of seating in an American surburb”. “They said ‘Back home, you can sit anywhere’.

So any of you who are sentimental about living or dead architects, Oak Park has been called a living laboratory of American architecture but you wonder for how much longer.

As more and more people are confined to more and more housing in our cities, which amount to”human filing cabinets” as one sociologist named them in the 60’s, public space has become and will continue to become vitally more important to our well-being. What is the threat of talking about the importance of it?

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

‘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

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.

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!

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????

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.

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.

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.

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

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!!!

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Who cares what Gehry has to say, anyway?

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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?

@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!

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.

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)!

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.

@ 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.

http://www.pps.org/great_public_spaces/one?public_place_id=827&type_id=2#

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.

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!

[...] Read it here. [...]

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”.

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)

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?

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.

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.

just share a comment from an elderly bilbao residents when i was in Bilbao visiting bilbao museum, of course. the old lady approached me as i was standing outside admiring it from across the river. she told me when it was just completed she did not like it but after a while she says she begins to like it. As a public place,i believe it will get there, give it a bit of time like new house and places. it is a new beginning for Bilbao compared to the old Bilbao urban fabric. it needs to be built and layered upon. a wonderful centre. Bilbao is not barcelona you are not going to get that sort of ‘buzzy’ public life even in the old Bilbao, expectation must be realistic.

Fred,

Thanks for asking such an important question, and also for framing the question with enough context for Frank to be able to fully respond. He could have answered the question in any number of ways. It’s too bad that he chose not to engage. It would have made for some interesting discussion later.

Please keep up your excellent work, and for helping to provide this venue for us.

Mark
City Repair

Yes, this was a very interesting encounter at the Aspen Ideas Festival. I read the incident on the PPS site, Fallows’ Atlantic article and the ‘City Comforts’ blog.

It’s really impressive to see Ghery’s architecture. I mean, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is definitely a very intricate, impressive, spatially imposing, elegant in its own way, with a very special relationship to the sky and water structure. For Ghery to achieve a balance in the aesthetics of so many forms and combine them in an aesthetically harmonious way is an achievement he is obviously proud of. The same I think regarding the rest of his buildings.

There is an aesthetic Ghery goes for and his deep knowledge of architecture and the deliverance of this aesthetic is definitely pronounced and vividly exhibited in his intricate and unusual sculptural creations of buildings.

Do we need this architectural elaboration as a society? Why not? It’s something not only to admire but also a source of richness and pride in our daily life.

So far so good. There are of course different questions someone can ask about the contributions of such architecture and every question can approach the subject from a different facet. At the same time, every such facet can represent different dimensions an architectural structure could possibly acquire.

I believe Ghery was being asked a simple question: how can his buildings include this other dimension, called ‘a good public space’ or else how can his creations contribute more to the public life in the open spaces around them. Is what’s there enough? Is this new dimension, called ‘effective public space,’ useful for Ghery’s buildings and the city they reside?

Much of the talk in the articles and the blogs I read was about who is arrogant and who is not, who is classy or not or whether Ghery’s ‘hauteur’ fit within his brilliance. Some of the blogs though, focused on the issue, the simple fact that Ghery left the question unanswered.

So with all do respect I will ask Ghery myself: why not incorporate this new dimension into the buildings, or why would you think it is unnecessary if so. Ghery, you are a very exceptional architect and figure of our era and we need your opinion on the issue. Why not elaborate and discuss the importance of creating an effective public space around iconic buildings?

What a pity that an opportunity for productive discussion on the topic of iconic architecture and public space was lost to the audience (and to us) just because the personalities involved had something to prove to each other.

Public space may be viewed as the “sala” or salon where our lives unfold. And as in any living room wall, an accent may add interest to that space, but it can only be part of the larger whole, and never greater than it. Iconic architecture serves basically as “accent” to those spaces where people congregate. No matter how breath taking it may be (as in Gehry’s works for instance), it still must be subservient to some public space - whether it be a plaza mayor, square or sidewalk. The setting lends it its character and importance. The greater the setting, the more important then is its relevance to the community. But in the end it serves only still, as the ever changing backdrop to public and personal events, and not directly as the main space where these may take place.

I agree with Mr Evangelopoulos and Barcia… The opportunity for discussion was lost a bit, but alas, can be found again. Disclosure, I am an Urban Planner.

Context– it is what many architects miss in the focus of the structure itself and what seems to be the inherent need to set one’s SELF apart from other designers. Architectural detail– is what many urban planners fail to convey as important within their socialistic mindsets.

The importance of focusing on the building itself is not in dispute, but the interface and relationships of that building to the humans along side it is more important. The fact that someone can be called a visionary that dismisses what I believe is a critical piece of every project — the architecture of the public space that the (would be) iconic structure sets within is questionable but unimportant in this discussion. The true questions is; how can we, as planners and architects, come together to influence each other that both structure and context are important components of a quality environment. These territorial “markings” that each of our own perspectives is more important than the others has to go (including engineers). The people our work serves is of utmost importance and life so dynamic that it truly takes all of perspectives to make it work!

Join the discussion Mr Gehry and use your influence to help us bridge these divides…

I was glad this exchange provoked Mike Dobbins to chime in (Aug 30) with his synthesis of the dialectic which has sharpened, not only thanks to Kent and Gehry, but also thanks to the collapse of the financial market for trophy architecture. The coincidence of this economic “context” with Wiley’s publication this year of Dobbins’ URBAN DESIGN AND PEOPLE could (repeat, could) provide a turning point.

My fear, however, is that as celebrity and wannabe celebrity architecture firms scramble to survive by sniffing out and scooping up the public projects, we’ll see more celebrity dictated urban design disasters than Dobbins’ style “citizen guided” urban design successes.

I also suspect that what we are discussing here — the dialectic between the 5% of buildings Gehry deems “architecture” and Dobbins’ “civic environment” which the “architecture” complements or embarrasses — does, for better or worse, have as much to do with personality as economics. or perhaps more aptly said, one’s personal values and practice vis a vis the economy. Some years ago after watching Dobbins interact with a neighborhood group, I described him as “a pencil in the hands of the people.” This takes an architect with a personality vis a vis economics different from one said to design by crumpling a piece of paper and hiring structural engineers to “make it so.”

[...]  The exchange between starchitect Frank Gehry and Project for Public  Places‘ (PPS), Fred Kent, or rather the non exchange, stimulated a great exchange. [...]

[...] I’m a little unhappy about it, but given Gehry’s recent behavior (and continuing problems with public space), maybe he needed an attitude adjustment on this [...]

I used to love Frank Gehry’s stuff even emulated his studio when I was in the A&E business in the 1980’s- Loyala Law, his house, great out of the box thinking- then I saw the Seattle abortion- CAD privilege gone wild- we don’t need to use the stretch command as a design fix on the Parthenon or whatever, reminded me of the Zomeworks weather balloon homes where if you wanted a bigger living room you just pumped in a few thousand cubic feet more—I am glad to hear you called him on it, or at least are asking the question “How important is it to be radical in your abandonment of traditional design-”. Not to forget his use of ridiculously expensive materials and difficult to impossible to maintain buildings- titanium ear rings for a building? And someone should call him on his comment in his interview movie for making a sexist comment on a model as being “looking to flat, like Alice-” as the probable Alice walked by…. ahhhh the benefits of starchitecture

Sorry to see in writing some bickering over who is more pompous than others. Reminds me of too many conferences I’ve spoken at and attended.

Fact of the matter is that we have an enormous and highly complex set of public policy, legislative and regulatory problems that have created the urban and suburban mess that a couple of hundred million of us are having to live in and with. The effect of our nation swallowing hook line and sinker Detroit’s vision of the American Dream has precipitated a 50 year profits-at-all-costs construction binge by developers and so-called “builders” who have smeared poorly constructed fake Tuscany suburban sprawl across our landscapes with no regard at all to the patterns and needs of people and the natural world that sprawl impacts so directly.

The cultural, social and economic blight that such development have so ably supported is what we are now having to deal with. And its going to take a couple of generations to fix. During that time, our universities and the professions involved in the environments we inhabit (natural and man-made) have got to do a far better job of educating new generations who need to be skilled in depth in many different disciplines. The idea that architects only “do buildings” or geographers only “do cultural landscapes” or urban planners only know how to draw on maps is ridiculous today and will be ever more so in the coming years. Additionally, we have got to move toward a far stronger evidence-basis for design and planning decisions. The social, cultural, economic, and criminal justice implications of design and infrastructure planning decisions (transit, open and public spaces, buildings, retrofits etc.) are significant and are measurable. Consequently, skills in systems thinking and system dynamics will become even more important than they are perceived to be today.

The one benefit of the recession is that it is forcing a wide range of people and disciplines to consider what on earth we were thinking over the past 50 years. I’m also hopng that the bizarre and unproductive days of the “starchitect” are waning as they have generally not been able to demonstrate how their work directly benefits the environments in which they exist. I’ve heard about the “Bilbao Effect” of placing the Guggenheim Museum in what was once a blighted and dangerous docklands area. My sense though is that it took far more than just the building to create the economic effects that Bilbao now enjoys.

I’m finding this discussion extremely interesting, but I’d intended to stay out of it, until I received the recent PPS mailing, which led off with this comment:

“the arts are and always have been driven to a large degree by more or less conscious desire of the elite to differentiate itself from the masses. With the industrial and educational revolution in the beginning of the last century, classical art lost its differentiating power, because it became available to the masses. The replacement of principles of harmony and beauty with obscurity and conceptual code was the only mechanism to restore the differentiating function of the arts.”

This is a great statement of a pretty common argument: great because it highlights a contradiction that could be a source of productive insight, if acknowledged.

The contradiction? The classical arts–honoring “principles of harmony and beauty”–are the products of a frankly class-differentiated society, driven by an explicit desire to distinguish the elite from the masses. Do we, therefore, think less of them? Does the will to distinction compromise their beauty?

If you say yes, you are a good democrat: quality is the enemy of equality. You can take your stand with the revolutionaries of 1793 who would have torn down the towers of Notre Dame.

If you say no, what’s your problem with the desire for distinction? Obscurity and conceptual code are symptoms of a desire for distinction in a democratic age, when all judgments of quality are under suspicion of harboring snobbery, being vehicles of elitism. Rampant anti-elitism discounts judgment, avoids serious argument about aesthetics, and paradoxically encourages artists to ignore the public.

So let’s be careful when we claim to speak against elites in the name of the public: aren’t we just preferring one elitism to another? A spurious populism is no substitute for serious argument.

[...] רצה לענות על השאלה ולמרות שקנט חזר עליה פעמיים נוספות הארכיטקט המפורסם ניפנף בידו בזלזול.הארוע גלש משם וסיפק כר נרחב לדיונים ברשת. כדאי לציין [...]

I often thought about showing people (but not architects) two photos side by side, that of the New York and that of the Bilbao Gugenheim, both from a distance of say 30 meters, and asking them to state their prefernce. I know what mine is.

Successful outdoor spaces will only be achieved when Architects acknowledge Landscape Architects!

Todays Iconic architecture is sculpture,that says ‘look at me’ dont use me!landscape around these structures is cold and bare so that it does not interfere in its viewing.Its egoistic, that’s what Architects are and that’s what clients are too !

Amen GV!

[...] Our thinking on the subject was substantially enriched by these stimulating comments, which is why we are reprinting a number of them here. For the full-scale discussion visit our website. [...]

[...] when given an opportunity to work at too great a scale. Along these lines, an interesting debate has been taking place between proponents of Frank Gehry and members of the more Jane Jacobs minded (actually, more [...]