So much appears to have gone horribly wrong
in the preliminary design of Peter Zumthor’s rebuild of the Los Angeles County
Museum of Art, it is almost impossible to know where to start; but before or after you read this post, you can see the designs in the LA Times on-line review by Christopher Hawthorne. And here are just a few first thoughts.
The proposed new
mega-structure would be an immense dark grey concrete mass (reminiscent of
1960's New Brutalism style) - built on stilts rising over 30 feet above the
ground; a stylistic choice once partially embraced by the much unloved ‘waffle building’
at UCLA also built in the 1960’s.
This costly engineering decision to
elevate the entire new campus three stories into the air would then plunge much
of the buildings huge, sprawling footprint
(sprawling since it will be a single story
building replacing multiple multistory buildings) into an often sunless darkness.
The affect of this structure on Wilshire Boulevard will be equally chilling. Rather than embracing and opening up to the street, the new building will equally ignore street and sidewalk, and instead hover over thirty feet above them (becoming all but invisible to passing cars) - much like the long decried elevated concrete pedways of Bunker Hill built in the 1970's, but planned for in the 1960's.
The affect of this structure on Wilshire Boulevard will be equally chilling. Rather than embracing and opening up to the street, the new building will equally ignore street and sidewalk, and instead hover over thirty feet above them (becoming all but invisible to passing cars) - much like the long decried elevated concrete pedways of Bunker Hill built in the 1970's, but planned for in the 1960's.
The building’s complete removal from the
public realm is particularly surprising since the current campus’ perceived lack
of engagement with the sidewalk is one of the reasons why some critics –
including director Michael Govan - have called for its removal
But rather than settle for the current mere
‘disengagement;’ Zumthor has instead proposed to build a physically aloof and alien
presence that will look magisterially, if
not, disdainfully, down upon the rest of the city.
Equally as bizarre, despite the fact the
biggest criticism of the Anderson Building has been that it hid the once highly
visible public access to the museum; the new building will replace that long hidden
easily readable communal entry and orientation space with 7 separate 30
foot-plus tall staircases, each one encased within one of the massive concrete supports.
Then in a stunning Orwellian example of
new speak, the decision to refuse to provide an understandable and easily accessible
public entrance is proudly proclaimed to be a courageous strike for openness
and tolerance.
Somewhat more tellingly, these seven
staircases are also described as a way for the architect to "control the way visitors first come into physical
contact with his architecture."
The next big surprise is that the project’s
grand architectural gesture – the massive and meandering amoeba-like exterior
of the building – turns out to have... absolutely nothing... to do with any of the
interior uses of the building.
All that architectural strum und and drang
exists to encase a grand total of 7 traditionally shaped, rectangular art
galleries to house the permanent collection – and hallways that will connect
those seven traditionally formed galleries with each other. Everything else about the exterior is simply the
decorative ‘box’ those boxes will come in.
And those seven galleries are a lot
fewer than the number of existing permanent galleries they will be replacing. It almost seems as if there might not even enough
permanent galleries for each of the major collections to have its own separate
gallery.
But that is
still a lot better than what appears to be proposed for the temporary shows.
It seems they will be installed in the hallways that will connect the main
galleries.... with glass walls on one side and the art work installed on the other
side of the walkway.
In too many
ways, the building’s ability to function within the urban infrastructure and its
ability to properly display art appears to have by the end of the process, despite
all the great and idealistic intentions of everyone involved, become an after-thought
to the theoretical and architectural conceits.
But there is some good news about this plan. It all but guarantees a reprieve for the existing campus. It creates a second opportunity to rethink the long outdated 1960's concept that the best - if not only - way to create the future is by demolishing the past.
But there is some good news about this plan. It all but guarantees a reprieve for the existing campus. It creates a second opportunity to rethink the long outdated 1960's concept that the best - if not only - way to create the future is by demolishing the past.
And, for another point of view be certain to read the rather different Sunday LA Times coverage which includes Christopher Hawthorne's review.
How can I say this? The design for this building is an unmitigated disaster. Let me add a few reasons to the negative review here. For one thing, I say work backward from the thing that really works--Chris Burden's Street Lamps. How would they possibly co-exist with this black blob of a new building? Second, I paid a visit to Zumthor's Kolumba Museum in Cologne, Germany. It is a HIGHLY conceptual design, mixing the old of a church ruin, with the new of a modern building. So, just as the LACMA design conceptualizes the tar pits, so does the Kolumba Museum conceptualize the old and new. And then inside the Kolumba, the artwork shown is, you guessed it, a combination of old and new. Indeed, the style of individual rooms mixes, again, the old and new. This is not the approach that a public building for display of all different kinds of art requires. Despite the somewhat disappointing Piano designs of the recent buildings, at least they are open and flexible. And here's one last small point, but perhaps telling. As we walked around the Kolumba, it seemed as though the many museum guards there were following us. After a time, I realized that they were. Why? Because the step from one room to another each had a half-step against which the guards were warning us not to trip. This is not an architect whose building, even in its operating details, will support thousands of daily visitors. It may not be this half-step issue, but I guarantee it will be another. It is important that the Board of LACMA put a stop to Govan's Folly asap! Maybe the solution is to just let Piano finish off what he started and then get on with the most important function, organizing and financing as many art shows as possible.
ReplyDelete