Jump to content

Orlando Performing Arts Center


retorsky

Recommended Posts

I've seen the Disney Concert Hall in person, and I pass by Gehry's building in Boston at MIT, the Stata Center, on a daily basis, and I just think they are ridiculous (and I am by no means conservative).  Miami's PAC is so much better, IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you think they are ridiculous? I really like the idea of a museum or PAC being a piece of civic sculpture. Have you ever been inside the MIT building? I haven't, but I've seen pictures and I really like the interior. I think it would put a smile on my face if I walked by the building everyday. Does it always provoke a reaction in you every time you walk by it? I get the feeling it would provoke a reaction in me every time I walked by it (although probably the opposite reaction that you have). Gehry's designs are really just functional pieces of art (and some would argue they're not all that functional), and I think good art should provoke strong reactions (both positive and negative). Even if you don't like the building, is it stimulating and thought-provoking when you see it, or does it just annoy you? Finally, would you prefer to walk by a generic cookie cutter building that you start to not even notice every day, or would you prefer to walk by the current building?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Why do you think they are ridiculous?  I really like the idea of a museum or PAC being a piece of civic sculpture.  Have you ever been inside the MIT building?  I haven't, but I've seen pictures and I really like the interior.  I think it would put a smile on my face if I walked by the building everyday.  Does it always provoke a reaction in you every time you walk by it?  I get the feeling it would provoke a reaction in me every time I walked by it (although probably the opposite reaction that you have).  Gehry's designs are really just functional pieces of art (and some would argue they're not all that functional), and I think good art should provoke strong reactions (both positive and negative).  Even if you don't like the building, is it stimulating and thought-provoking when you see it, or does it just annoy you?  Finally, would you prefer to walk by a generic cookie cutter building that you start to not even notice every day, or would you prefer to walk by the current building?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The subject of MIT's Stata Center has been controversial ever since the first rendering of the building was displayed to the public (as has most of Gehry's designs). First the design was criticized as being too outlandish. Then as the project was being constructed, it was constantly being blasted for going over budget and for taking too long to complete. The response to those issues were that because it was a Gehry design and extremely complex design, it was also extremely difficult to construct. Eventually it was finished shortly before I graduated from MIT, albeit overbudget and several months late. While it is certainly a striking building, I find it difficult to take it seriously. Granted I love some of Gehry's other work (Bilbao, Disney), I think the Stata Center is a monstrosity. On one hand, it was really nice to see such a drastic architectural style on campus, with countless interesting peculiarities about it, but on the other hand, it always looked out of place and was difficult to navigate. The funny thing is that the largest tenant of this crazy design is MIT's department of computer science and electrical engineering-- not exactly the type of artsy liberals you would think could appreciate the design of such a building. It's not like the building is host to an art museum or performing arts complex..no, it's just the nerve center for a bunch of nerds. And to digress for just a moment, most of these MIT students and professors lack the ability to properly clothe themselves without looking socially inept. It seems like MIT just gave Frank Gehry the Stata Center site and said "here's your canvas, now go to work." By that I mean that Stata seems much more like an attempt at architectural artwork than form following function. The same can go for Steven Holl's Simmons Hall on the opposite end of MIT's campus (see below), which also went way over budget and took much longer to construct than originally anticipated.

Simmons Hall:

SimmonsExt001web.jpg

Stata Center:

site-01172004.jpg

Sort of like BMW's current designs by Chris Bangle, people tend to either love or hate these buildings. Personally, I like how both MIT buildings are different, but I feel like they could have been designed slightly differently so that they could achieve greater appeal. As far as the designs being thought-provoking, I can speak for Simmons Hall better than the Stata Center simply because I walked by Simmons several times a day while at school as opposed to just a few times a week for Stata; and also because Simmons was around for about a year longer than Stata. With Simmons, I definitely did not like the design when it went up. It was only after walking past the building several hundred times and analyzing it for my architecture classes when it began to grow on me. I can appreciate it for what it is now, but that's not to say other people can. I would say that most of the students at MIT don't like the design of Simmons at first glance.

I think it's almost ironic that these two modern buildings of radical style exist in plain view of I.M. Pei's (MIT alum!) simplistic John Hancock Tower, and yet the Hancock is widely considered to be one of the most beautiful buildings in the city of Boston. It just goes to show you that you don't need to have the newest and flashiest design to have a stunningly popular building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your anecdote about not liking some of the architecture at first, but then growing to appreciate it later. I realize that it sounds like a bit of a gimmick to say that you often have to look at the design repeatedly before you begin to "get it." To the skeptic, it sounds like you have to convince yourself to like the design. However, I welcome complexity and don't think it's a bad thing that a design's brilliance is not necessarily apparent at first glance (although don't get me wrong, I can appreciate simplicity as well). I know when I first saw some of Gehry's work in high school I thought it looked like a traditional building imploding (this is why I also think some people fairly think Gehry's work is nihilistic).

I also like your point about the two radical buildings being so close to such a traditional design. I think this is architecture at its best. I love the clash of ideas, and I think the only place more essential for this to occur than an urban environment is on a university campus. I go to Vanderbilt and although we have a very nice traditional campus, it can be frustrating how so many people fight any campus design that is not brick. FWIW, my favorite building on campus is the bio-medical library, so who says geeks don't have the best taste? Anyway, my point is that it's healthy and natural for design not to be uniform. Humans at their core are individuals, and I think architecture and design should reflect this. I think it's unhealthy and troubling when everything is uniform. Humans aren't this way (at least they shouldn't be) and design and architecture shouldn't be either. It just seems authoritarian to me (if you want to appeal to conservatives, you can allude to communism; if you want to appeal to liberals, you can allude to fascism).

P.S. That we're even having this discussion demonstrates the value of Gehry's work. You couldn't say the same for 99.5% of the rest of computer science buildings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I love the Gehry designs...but I think they've lost some of their novelty. I think to try something similar would look like we're just ripping off old ideas. Whatever Orlando decides for a PAC, I hope the powers-that-be realize that it needs a first class design and maybe, here's a shocker, something new and bold. This should be more than just another building, it should make a powerful statement about the arts in our community. Not going to hold my breath on that one.

Anyway, read over the wire a few days ago that work will begin on buffing some of the luster off the Disney Concert Hall in L.A. Apparently, it produced such a glare that it heated the nearby surroundings to incredibly high temperatures, causing all sorts of problems and complaints. Things like "Ow, this building is frying my retinas" etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think they are ridiculous?  I really like the idea of a museum or PAC being a piece of civic sculpture.  Have you ever been inside the MIT building?  I haven't, but I've seen pictures and I really like the interior.  I think it would put a smile on my face if I walked by the building everyday.  Does it always provoke a reaction in you every time you walk by it?  I get the feeling it would provoke a reaction in me every time I walked by it (although probably the opposite reaction that you have).  Gehry's designs are really just functional pieces of art (and some would argue they're not all that functional), and I think good art should provoke strong reactions (both positive and negative).  Even if you don't like the building, is it stimulating and thought-provoking when you see it, or does it just annoy you?  Finally, would you prefer to walk by a generic cookie cutter building that you start to not even notice every day, or would you prefer to walk by the current building?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the Stata Center is ridiculous first, because it fails at streetlevel (it relies on setbacks because Gehry just designed something without really taking in any regard for his surroundings, unlike a new building across the street that actually built around train tracks and they go right through the building). Second, the interior, like most Gehry designs, is not functional. They are a big waste of space. The Stata Center takes that to a new extreme. Don't get me wrong, I tried to like this building and was excited scoping it out during construction, but as time has gone on I've become annoyed with its presence. Its just so obnoxiously screaming out "look at me" and when you actually do, you realize that even some of the early 20th century warehouses in the area are architecturally superior to this building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Above all, I think "urban" architecture should be functional. I've heard many complaints about this in relation to the Disney center. If Orlando wants to have a centerpiece arts center downtown I'd stay away from Ghery like art pieces. Modern architecture seems to be about building something because they can, not because they should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Ghery type of design would bring people downtown, and give an icon for downtown orlando.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't disagree that a bold contemporary design would be nice, but I'd hate to see it a Gehry.

I think the real "art" in architecture is its functionality (sp?) yet is still beautiful and inspiring (think Barcelona, think Paris, think SoHo).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paris, Barcelona or Soho are well-established cities with thier own identity. A Gehry or "outrageous" design type of architecture will just be an added on to the great city.

Orlando is trying to established its downtown core, a Gehry type of design will not only provide an art venue for the local, but will also be an icon for downtown orlando that will bring downtown orlando to the next level.

For example, Charlotte have a PAC in downtown under Bof A tower, u hardly ever notice it until u see the sign..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paris, Barcelona or Soho are well-established cities with thier own identity. A Gehry or "outrageous" design type of architecture will just be an added on to the great city.

Orlando is trying to established its downtown core, a Gehry type of design will not only provide an art venue for the local, but will also be an icon for downtown orlando that will bring downtown orlando to the next level.

For example, Charlotte have a PAC in downtown under Bof A tower, u hardly ever notice it until u see the sign..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think you missed my point. Anyways, downtown Orlando can get a bold design that doesn't have to be a Gehry (as you can see I don't like him much), thus we don't have to sacrifice "taste" for art. Then again, art is subjective. Further, architects like Gehry, Graves, Pei, etc, don't create a city's identity, they may give it a few landmarks, but people give it an identity. I would much prefer a mixed use project, with a theater, retail, restaurants, etc., and if you know a thing or two about Gehry (even if you don't just look at his projects), he doesn't know the meaning of mixed-use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you missed my point.  Anyways, downtown Orlando can get a bold design that doesn't have to be a Gehry (as you can see I don't like him much), thus we don't have to sacrifice "taste" for art.  Then again, art is subjective.  Further, architects like Gehry, Graves, Pei, etc, don't create a city's identity, they may give it a few landmarks, but people give it an identity.  I would much prefer a mixed use project, with a theater, retail, restaurants, etc., and if you know a thing or two about Gehry (even if you don't just look at his projects), he doesn't know the meaning of mixed-use.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doesn't know the meaning of mixed-use? Have you seen his design for the Nets' Stadium in Brooklyn? I can accept that you don't like Gehry, but I think it's unfair to say he doesn't know the meaning of mixed use. Check out the design and tell me if you still feel the same (make sure to look at how it incorporates the stadium, public space (check out the ice rink), shops, and especially public transportation). IMHO, it's one the best mixed-use projects I've ever seen.

Check out http://www.bball.net/ and you can read about the project. Also, if you google it, you can find much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.