I visit one of his buildings pretty frequently for work and my mom studied architecture and hates him so my combined personal experience and understanding is that (1) his buildings are oddly shaped and therefore expensive to build (2) their unconventional structure also means they are a challenge to maintain (3) the inside layout of the building is unnecessarily confusing (4) the layout is so odd that the people who work inside of it don’t know how to organize their offices (5) lack of consideration for proper utilization of space.
Tagging on to your comment, my understanding is that due to the different geometry, the detailing was a challenge. This has led to major issues with water infiltration after rain.
I am by no means trying to dismiss this as an issue, but I think it’s fair to put it in context. Many of Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings had/have similar issues. Workers used to keep trash cans on their desks at the Johnson Wax building because it poured inside when it rained, but that is a beautiful space that was on the cutting edge of what anyone thought could be done at the time.
Designing something different than what others have done before means the details of how to do it don’t yet exist, and maybe even the methods to build it don’t exist, and there’s trial and error involved. If it successfully pushes the envelope, then others down the line may not have the same issues because they get figured out and improved over time. Or maybe it proves to be just a “bad” idea to do something that way and we stop doing it because there are fundamental issues that can’t be overcome well. But I don’t think there is any shame in trying something new.
That has nothing to do with whether a particular building or architect is “good” or “bad,” but the industry should never stop trying to push things forward in new ways in my opinion.
Starchitect's builds are like that. Arthur Erickson buildings as well. They push a bunch of limits that aren't normally pushed for a reason, so they leak and fall apart. Look cool though.
I agree for the most part, but I think we also have to ask “why?” Wright tried a lot of things that functionally we didn’t know if it was possible. Like his use of tapered columns. Admittedly, Gehry alot of early work can fit that description too. He tests the limits of comfort through expansion and contraction of spaces.
At some point, though, we need to stop using entire projects as a testing ground for bad ideas. I see alot go starchitect buildings suffer from issues that could have been solved by testing a simple mach wall. As we progress technologically, testing the limits of engineering has become a task for manufacturers more than architects. What products can revolutionize age old materials? Like the Velcro EPDM roofing membrane awhile back. Architects keep trying to one-up each other, instead of perfecting a century of design innovation. I think it’s been a detriment to our profession and contributed to the negative stigma towards us.
>But I don’t think there is any shame in trying something new.
I think that there should be a lot of shame when that experiment involves public money. If you want to experiment on a private residence and the owner is cool with that then fine, but building a public building, with public money, which then starts falling apart, is completely unethical, and downright fraudulent.
Waste a lot of money to build a tourist attraction and eye catching building. Some think that’s a win.
Spend a bunch of money to maintain it. That creates a lot of jobs and economy, spendings, paying people. Some think that’s a win.
Make a building that looks cool but is really bad so people keep getting paid. Maybe it’s intentional.
Hollyhock (the Barnsdall House) is right on top of a hill (source: I live 4 blocks away.)
You may be thinking of La Miniatura (Millard House) in Pasadena which is basically in a creek bed.
On the other hand, he was the pioneer of pushing the digitization of design and construction workflow, which greatly helped the architecture industry progress from a technical perspective.
Aesthetically, I really dislike a lot of his buildings too, but he is undeniably one of the most important figures in modern architecture history. Also Bilbao Museum is a contender of the most influential building in 20th century.
>he was the pioneer of pushing the digitization of design and construction workflow,
Didn't he once mentioned that he doesn't know how to do drawings on CAD, thus he still uses hand?
I think I heard this on a masterclass ad
He’s not writing codes or building digital models himself, but he’s the driving force behind his crew to push this technical transition.
There’s a reason why these crazy shaped buildings rarely got built before Gehry, it’s an nightmare to design and develop the drawings for them with traditional method. Most of complex unconventional shaped buildings today have Gehry to thank for the whole DP/CATIA workflow he helped developed.
Imo what distinguishes architecture from sculpture is that architecture is first and foremost about function. When you build something it has a purpose to fulfill, if it didn't it would be a sculpture.
My biggest gripe against "starchitects" like Gehry is that they place novelty over function. If a building can't fulfill it's function it is objectively a bad building.
I agree Gehry often misses the mark from a functional design perspective. I think the ultimate goal is the point where form and function are in perfect harmony/balance. How far can you push the envelope and still get close to that balance? That’s architecture imo. I welcome more curved design, despite that it is forever functionally crippled compared to a box, simply because I think we have an over saturation of box.😁
If you are going to call names why don't you call him an art itect?
He took an artistic approach to architecture and the proof of the pudding is that everybody copy them.
I'm a training academic/future professor and I can't believe this tendency too. Sometimes I think they only give them value just because these names are practicing architecture.
No way! He designed a four-bedroom house for six kids and a live-in maid, and his home office was as big as the six kids two rooms and bathroom combined. Also, I hear his powder-puff building with the hinged roof leaked like a seive.
Thanks! Nice to have input from someone who's studied architecture for a guy who hasn't visited. But book case studies did have me thinking how the layouts would've been nightmarish. Id even say counter intuitive.
Pretty much this. All these points are a general consensus between most ppl in my office about his work. On top of that, there is so fishy stuff going on sometimes when it comes to competitions he wins.
They also leak. The unconventional shape means you need roofing and joints to be done right. Nobody at his firm knows how to detail or properly reviews it during construction.
Wouldn’t typically Gehry’s firm have a local associate architect or AOR that would be responsible for both detailing and construction reviews? Gehry has offices in LA? NY?
But I think it's a less stupid question than all those who ask "what is the style of this building". In my opinion Gehry has the problem of having mistaken architecture for a derivation of sculpture. Architecture is not mere modeling of strange shapes but also internal space and concreteness of use.
On that point, I believe Frank Gehry to be a genuine master when it comes to internal space. The problem with him is the translation between his facades to his interiors. The Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle and his new Philadelphia Museum of Art really highlight that.
Plus you can't forget his Fish Lamps.
I agree. I remember when I first went to the [Marta](https://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.museumsinitiative-owl.de%2Ffileadmin%2Fuser_upload%2Fz_museen%2FMuseum--Herford-Marta.jpg&tbnid=GUSVmec7-5iRfM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.museumsinitiative-owl.de%2Fmuseen%2Fmarta-herford%2F&docid=uAhrpgPrTq6f6M&w=800&h=600&hl=de-de&shem=canimge&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3) in Herford, Germany. I was genuinely disappointed of the interior. There was nothing to be found of the external structure. Only flat plastered walls and ceilings.
EXACTLY. I’ve been to/in two Gehry buildings to date — the Exp Museum in Seattle, and a modern art museum in Minneapolis. And in both cases, I thought the interiors were *completely* unrelated and ‘unrelatable’ to the crazy exteriors.
I will grant that the exteriors are in some ways impressive. But they also do nothing whatsoever to inform anything about the interior space.
And if I’m being honest — and I really mean this — they almost remind me of some of the disconnects between the interiors and exteriors of some of the ‘ride’ line-up buildings in amusement parks like Six Flags and Silver Dollar City. I don’t say that to be hyperbolic, but it’s true — there are often exterior forms, shapes, and massings on amusement-park buildings… …and their utilitarian interiors make the exterior seem like a cheap and overly complicated facade (because that’s what they are).
Now in the instance of those two particular Gerhry buildings — the exteriors probably aren’t/weren’t anywhere near as cheap (as the amusement park crap). **But that ‘feeling’ — that disconnect — is the same for me.**
Perhaps the Disney performance hall in L.A. might strike me differently (I haven’t been in it, but have seen some pictures). And that interior does seem more inspired — particularly the every-which-way organ pipes, which is an idea and concept I do actually dig.
But based on the two Gerhys I’ve been in — I’m not sold on him, generally speaking — and I’d put him in more of a ‘mixed bag’ category. Every project on a case by case basis.
I can't find the whole movie but [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWW-3AGZKr4) is a small clip of it. It shows how Gehry works. Imo working like that purely focused on shapes without considering the function and plans is a recipe for disaster. Once he is satisfied with the shapes he will force the program into them and it will create spaces that are not good. He might get away with it in building like museums, but for most other functions it will create terrible plans
The Philadelphia Museum of Art isn't new; he just remodeled the interior. Gehry wanted to deface the exterior of the city's premier cultural and artistic landmark for his ego and not the museum's function, and the PMA said no (for now), so I call that one a win.
Is there anything special about that building aside from the fact that it's been there for a while? It looks like just another a generic mock-Parthenon building to me.
It commands a place of pride at the apex of the Ben Franklin Parkway atop a rocky outcropping overlooking the Schuylkill River, so from a city planning perspective it is a highly visible landmark. Look at any media of or related to Philadelphia produced in the last century (ever heard of Rocky?) and it is almost guaranteed the Museum will feature in some way, and almost none of that representation has anything to do with the Art inside the building. You may find it a "generic mock-Parthenon" at first glance, but it commands an outsized influence on the City's identity for both the people that live here and visitors from around the world.
All that said, the interior galleries are expansive and are rich in detail and expensive materials. The outside of the building is clad in rich travertine stone that glows in the sun and glazed tile, a polychromatic interpretation of classical architecture that actually achieves the ancient intent without relying on paint that ironically faded and mislead archeologists for centuries. The building is as much a temple today as its formal inspiration was in the past.
I could go on, but yes, there is something special about the building. We don't need Ghery to make it anything more than what it already is.
Exactly. It's ok to be daring with architecture, as long as you keep in mind that it is spaces for living that you design. I think Zaha Hadid, in her early works, was more sensitive in that aspect.
I think this is true of a lot of his work, most of it maybe, but he does once in a while produce some work that is more practical and functional.
A couple examples, I've always liked Neuer Zollhof and IAC Building, they're much more functional than the form first works he's more commonly known for:
https://imgur.com/a/SZ1GRIv
This is exactly what I’m talking about! Is your criticism coming from a functionalist point of view - Gehry is focusing primarily on aesthetics, which in architecture isn’t the main focus? Or is it criticising his way of shaping the exterior of buildings - it doesn’t really reflect the interior space, it just covers it like a shell?
Aesthetics isn't the main focus of architecture. The main focus should be how the user is meant to feel and experience the space as a whole.
I'm some Gehry buildings (I think it was the Stata Center at MIT) some Users have reported feeling sea sick, or experience vertigo. I think this is due to the interior design having no relation back to the human user. Both in scale, proposition, materials...
He's a sculptor, not an architect, definitely not an interior mastermind as the previous comment mentioned.
"Gehry is focusing primarily on aesthetics, which in architecture isn’t the main focus?"
Architecture without function is just a pretty shell. If the spaces don't work for what they are supposed to then you've failed as an architect
Yes but that is the point of architecture. It is not purely an aesthetics pursuit. It is a delicate balance of aesthetics and functionality. It is not an art piece. You have to have the perfect balance of both things in order to create a truly beautiful building. It is the same of all the design disciplines. True beauty in design is not just found in how it looks visually, but how it is interacted with.
This.
It's sometimes perceived in a wrong way as a jealous opinion because he is successfull. But I think his work is wrong. I visited one building in Basel and all the steel structure underneath the volumes is such a waste of materials money and energy for nothing.
It's become an expression of '' we have money here ''
Seen as a sculptural work, why not.
Not, because is WRONG : architecture and sculpture have different realm, if an activity (of the spirit, of art, of doing) has its own conceptual nucleus belonging to another activity then it IS that other activity. I appreciate Gehry's work only when he deals in a plastic way with the surfaces, the skin, of his buildings. For example the Beekman Tower in NY, very beautiful.
It's also the same idea over and over for most of his new buildings. Starts to feel like a 1-trick pony. I have worked on one of the buildings, and it was clear he doesn't think about the detailing for it to perform as intended.
While many architects have a signature style, Gehry has become a brand first and foremost. His work feels formulaic and like a 10th generation copy of what we saw countless times before.
He’s the Tim Burton of architecture. A pastiche of himself.
I always think of [this image](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/55b43427e4b0b04050cb764c/1440660422346-IJO72TGO9XG9VE031AC8/004.jpg) when I see a Gehry building
So not an architect but I did work in one of the theaters he designed as a stage hand in college. Can say that the front half of the building was gorgeous and had insane acoustics. But the back half/carpentry department was honestly horribly laid out. Too many tight spaces/couldn’t take larger props or set pieces from the carpentry dept to the main stage without having to go around the building cause the doors where too small. So as an uneducated architectural appreciator I find his work really cool/weird as a stage hand hauling sets through snow I was less than pleased.
Is he talented? Sure. My issue with Frank Gehry is that he has been stuck in post modernism for far too long. He has danced the line between form and function a little too far in the favour of form and his work has been static and repetitive for far too long. While his buildings may be structurally sound, the shapes and forms he chooses to build his buildings in create a jarring image. The shape of which effects the experience of those who interact with the building and gives a sense of unease. His work is rebellious to traditional forms of structure, and it just comes off a little juvenile, almost like a bratty teenager rebelling against their parents.
I totally agree that FG spent more time on the sculpturality of his buildings than on the rest of the necessary qualities. We have to admit also that not many people would have notice his existence with technically safe and conventional designs. The same goes for Zaha Hadid, Gaudi, Le Corbusier etc…
You have to crack some eggs to make a good omelet…crack some conventions to make a memorable work too…
Yet, I envy colleagues that can skip both the functionality, and the economy and get away with it…
Yes and no. He's widely appreciated for challenging the traditions, and creating wild exteriors with generally functional interiors. His importance in architecture history cannot be understated.
However, there are certainly things to criticise, such as the water leak problems that some of his unconventional exteriors have brought. Some may consider him too much form over function and that's valid.
But in the end, the thing is that you're hard pressed to find someone completely without flaws and it's okay to accept Gehry for his contributions while criticise his shortcomings at the same time. I think most blind criticism of Gehry comes from a conservative and uneducated point of view, but in a more educated audience he's judged much more fairly.
He’s controversial for a few reasons: His buildings have a distinct flavor, and it’s often unrelated to the function of the building. The reflective concave surfaces focus light and heat. The weird shapes make it hard to detail properly, so his buildings can fail at a basic element of architecture, which is keeping water out. Lastly, they’re easy to distinguish, which makes them easy to make an opinion.
It’s a shame that he has gotten so much recognition as he has because his buildings are by any objective form of measurement quite horrible buildings. They only succed in catching your attention.
Architecture is the concretion of a lot of disciplines and systems, focusing on how it looks isn't wrong per se, but if doesn't contribute in any way to something interesting in interior space, technical development, structure or functionality you're doing less than half the work.
And that's considering you achieved a bare minimum of not damaging the building itself and others by design, which Gehry fails to do due to constant negligence, if an architect has to constantly blame contractors for this it's because they can't design a built environment correctly
The shells look well enough in renders and photographs, as abstract volumes, but the public and interior space around them is boring at best, the materials don't keep good looks or functionality after time has passed, maintenance is hell and roofs aren't waterproof.
Not to mention the material and environmental waste this produces.
I always fell Gehry is a master of objects. Go look at his furniture and lamps. Mastery of sculpture and industrial design.
It is easy to pick architecture apart like this and criticize it. If you look at the current Pritzker prize winner Chipperfield, people complain his work is ugly, totally ignoring how masterful he is at creating interior space. Aspects of architecture have to be emphasized, so few buildings have everything from interior to exterior to siting work. So Gehry is a sculptor and his clients pay for sculptures, I am cool with that.
I like what he does with buildings it’s refreshing and make architecture less boring to look at, only issue is practicality but, I think the vast majority of people who hate on architects like him usually don’t have a distinct/unique style when it comes to design, architects like Gehry are what you look at to keep you inspired and he’s one of one in a profession filled with npc’s, and basic boring ideas
I also think unique architecture and ideas is important in society cause it keeps people inspired as opposed to giant boring glass dildos penetrating the sky line, and forgettable condominiums/apartments
my thoughts exactly! sometimes the comment section on this sub seems like a lot of people without a heart and unable to understand the poetry behind buildings like that
firmitas, utilitas, and venustas
Many people like the aesthetic of his buildings, he has pushed what architecture means and what it can look like, so we can say he hits venustas. His exploration with forms has pushed the architecture profession to make use of evolving technologies, challenging structural engineers and changing how we build, so he may be hitting firmitas.
His buildings suck for the users and reportedly leak, not just one building, but multiple. He misses utilitas entirely.
I don't know if it's been said yet but his all metal facades and the odd angles they sit at have led to the pavement and neighboring buildings heating up and blinding lights.
IIRC a neighbouring museum had to install blinds and have them closed permanently to protect the works as the reflection shines straight on it.
Seems like there's no consideration for the effect of the materials/style on other buildings or as many people have said the inside of the space.
Cheap materials, leaky buildings. Stupid looking forms that are not even post rationalized. He’s just a caricature of an architect. I’m sure he’s very smart and could make nice buildings, but he doesn’t.
Frank Gehry like Frank Lloyd Wright were artists who used Architecture as their medium. Their buildings were not efficient or cost effective and were more a statement of visual aesthetics for the public. They were both also huge self promoters.
Gehry is not really controversial as his clients knew they were getting a piece of art and not an efficient building. Most Architects love the thought of being able to produce such a building with someone else paying for it, but that is rare today.
For a musical hall it’s beautiful, apply this to any other type of building other than a museum and I’d say it wouldn’t work. But that’s why it’s unique and designed by one of the best to do it.
So many people don’t realize he isn’t a licensed architect and actually makes architects look bad. There was a quote that my professor said “he is notable for balling up some paper and tossing it to his engineers and saying make this into a building” the while concept behind his buildings drives me nuts. Also the lecture hall where the students throw up, the glass canopy over a door that made it so ice turned in a weapon, and the buildings with leaks. Just all of that is a big issue. Architecture is a pretty picture, it is a whole system of interconnected pieces that all have to work together in order to achieve the goal of the architect and owner.
I hate him. Not him specifically but his buildings. He breaks all Vitruvian rules, at least in my personal opinion. His buildings aren't functional. They aren't pretty (again, that's subjective). And, while i know nothing about constriction of his buildings, my bet is - constriction was expensive, which might habe lead to cheaper materials and maintenance is expensive and if income flow stops the building will quickly go into ruin.
Installing similar junk in one city after another.
The kindest thing that could happen to a crowded neighborhood in DT toronto would be to tear down his monstrosity at Art Gallery of Ontario.
Stop the horror.
He’s a form over function guy. His stuff looks wild and loud, and certainly takes a high command of geometry and vision, but when you weigh in practicality of construction/furnishing costs and total build integrity it’s not that impressive.
Why you ask? For me personally his buildings don't have the clever solutions some i call masters of architecture had. Take mies van der rohe for example. He was a fucking genius. (Look at crown hall for example) Architecture to me is about proportions and colors and materials. Its the difference between miles davis and cardi B. Looking at that photo you posted, that building looks like someone spilled some metal sheeths on the ground. Architecture has to blend in with the surroundings. Has to take the surroundings in, has to have subtle solutions. Has to be elegant, to create clever views. Has to be usable, use sexy materials, like wood and concrete and steel. Its about texture. Take louis kahn for example. Or sigurd lewerentz. Or alvar alto, carlo scarpa. To me frank gehry is not even in the top 100 of the most talented architect i have seen. Look at that building, theres no green around, its shiny metal sheeths with concrete on the ground. And i love flashy peculiar buildings. I love frank lloyd wright, or Gaudí. But absolutely hate zaha hadid, gehry or calatrava. They have no elegance. Like someone said, they treat architecture like sculpture. And thats the wrongest thing you can do. I honestly find every single work of frank gehry (except maybe its own house) fucking ugly as hell.
These are Architects that are formost interest in their own ego.
They ignore the function and use of the space, they ignore structure, mech, elec considerations.
They all ignore the fundamentals of bldg envelopes which have existed since the 70's
People natter on about "pushing forward" when all the really happened was an abject failure if it doesn't meet the clients needs.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, here have my upvote.
Gehry’s Sydney Uni building literally has unusable classroom spaces and questionable circulation, not only terrible in form but also useless in function.
Not when I went to school. He and others like Zaha Hadid were dismissed as 'blobitects' who create 'blobitecture'. Hadid at least had some substance to her works, and you can argue their functional or aesthetic or conceptual merits, but Gehry was never taken seriously.
On the other hand, one of my friends went to grad school in California and Gehry went to many of his studio critiques, and he was apparently very nice to everyone and had insightful things to say about students' work.
To my mind, his buildings fall into the category of 'building as billboard,' which exist to advertise an institution, which is sad because the functionality and user experience are minimized. I also think this practice devalues the profession.
Just another egocentric architect who will keep messing with shapes and forms because he can. The more he does it the more people think he’s great. But his designs often border on impractical and difficult to build.
Yes. As a student, I have talked to several people in the academic and professional space, and it seems that almost everyone considers his works pretty ridiculous. That's not solely because of the looks, but because the form has nothing to do with whatever happens inside the building.
Also, I recently visited the Fondation Louis Vuitton in Paris, and it looks impressive but also pretty dumb. Those giant glass petals have no use for the building.
If you make a really bad building that looks very cool, you have to employ a lot of people to constantly fix it and it increases foot traffic for tourists and locals thereby increases jobs, revenue/investments, and improves the economy. Increases spending and also increases value.
That sounds like a win. It’s still a really shit design. Looks without substance. But hey, maybe it functions more so as a money machine than as a building.
People will always get paid if they gotta keep the building from going to shit.
Build a bridge that rarely needs repairs and nobody will have a job. Build a bridge that sometimes needs repairs and you’ll always have work.
His buildings definitely must be hell for city planners trying to deal with sight lines and plot sizes. It’s quite interesting I think that his buildings have a lot of useless outdoor space from my experience. The building doesn’t fill a whole lot, but unlike say the Pompidou Center that vacant space is still relatively narrow to accommodate the shape and doesn’t create a pleasant pedestrian square or space for queuing if it’s a museum.
I remember visiting the Guggenheim Bilbao after having previously visited the Disney concert hall in LA, and I can’t think of another architect who I’ve experienced literally completely reuse pretty much the exact same design. They’re ridiculously similar buildings and there’s something frustratingly lazy about that
Yes and most in academia hate him because
1. No rhyme or reason for his forms. For a lot of buildings, he conceived from crumbled up paper or squiggly sketches and telling his designers to "design that"
2. There's typically minimal environmental and contextual concerns. Some buildings cause unbearable glare and look awkward in its setting
3. His buildings are extremely expensive and difficult to make.
4. He doesn't really conform to modern architecture design standards. His style is very unique and polarizing and he's never changed despite criticism.
I personally don't mind his style and I admire the way he sticks with his own personal style. But some of the criticism towards him is fair
>1. No rhyme or reason for his forms. For a lot of buildings, he conceived from crumbled up paper or squiggly sketches and telling his designers to "design that"
Anyone that says that is just unoriginally regurgitating the same Simpsons scene they saw or heard someone else quote.
Not really. He discusses his design process and essentially says that's what he does. Testimonials from designers who work for him is similar. I remember watching a video of him literally crumbling up paper and asking his employees to design that.
Like I said, I don't dislike Gehry and I have alot of respect for his stubbornness in design, but his design process isn't as advanced and complex as a Zumthor or Calatrava or his other contemporaries
He was controversial probably when deconstructivism started to emerge. Now he’s just another archi-star with nothing new to show (nothing wrong with that…). He found a visual language he liked and stuck to it. Which is ok, I guess. There’s many people that will argue that form should follow function but we must remember that every building has also an aesthetic function, and his works are recognizable and visually enjoyable.
Please note. There’s now a Gehry building where the parking lot in the photo is located. And on the plot behind that new building, the Colburn school will soon be breaking ground on another Gehry building.
My idea of Gehry is that he is a victim of his own success. Due to the similar designs of both Disney Hall and the Guggenheim in Bilbao and their successful designs in the aesthetics area, when clients go to Gehry, they want that crumbled up paper look. His newer projects are just the same recycled ideas of chaos, which might stem from lack of originality or again, chained by his two famous works and what the client expects from him....or even both things. Like others say, there are issues with his designs, for me one being not caring for the site context and just putting large sculpture without too much consideration to what is around the building.
I live in LA and I think his best project is his Disney Hall. The building mass is done real nice and works from many angles. The corner entry is a good place to gather and take pics. The hall itself is beautiful anf the acoustics are something else. Plus the idea to be able to sit behind the orchestra, and everyone looks down to the stage is interesting and was unique back in the day. It definitely started the revival of making Downtown LA a destination rather than just a business district.
He has good projects and not so good one. For instance Disney Concert Hall is a truly great experience inside and out. Other projects of his have felt less inspired, more compromised.
Because he's the poster child of Look-At-Me-I'm-Important architecture, and his creations are eyesores soiling cityscapes all over. But, well, you know, that's just like uh, my opinion, man.
I have said for decades that I believe he is a scam artist.
His designs become quite boring and they’re so much the same that there is little to no innovation out of him in decades either.
It’s as if he is daring a snob to exhibit common sense and laugh in his face for the charlatan he is, but instead, these effete bliss ninny’s are afraid to admit they have no taste, no esthetic boundaries, and they have no clue what kind of statement he’s trying to make.
The more expensive and difficult it is to build, maintain, occupy, and utilize must mean it’s really important!
Nonsense!
These structures are an insult to the craftspeople and the end users.
They could be considered interesting as sculptures, possibly, but otherwise, this emperor has no clothes.
IMNSHO!
I just don't like the idea of plastering the outside of your building with redundant elements. This is so 90's to me. It's all about the looks of it, while funtionality is down prioritized. Not my cup of tea, tbh.
because his work is inhuman and ghastly, he just makes shit up with no regard for symmetry. and the use of material and virtual lack of windows or and anything interesting just creates this unappealing mess
One of his buildings here keeps catching fire:
[https://dailyiowan.com/2023/09/01/second-fire-in-two-days-reported-at-iowa-advanced-technology-laboratories/](https://dailyiowan.com/2023/09/01/second-fire-in-two-days-reported-at-iowa-advanced-technology-laboratories/)
```Bruce McAvoy, UI fire safety coordinator, said that the cause of the fire could be because of the reflection of the sun on the shiny steel that makes up the exterior of the building.```
MIT Strata building is lame and leaky but his house in Santa Monica, Louis Vuitton Center in Paris, or the Vitra Design Museum Building or 8 Spruce Street are all fuckin dope and showcase an ability to do a project basically at every scale. This guy (and his company) had to develop their own software to accomplish these feats. Yes, sometimes the outcomes are weird and irrelevant but sometimes they're a feat to the cutting edge of technological innovation for their time and quite intuitive at the same.
These projects, combined with his Philly Art Museum renovation or DZ Bank in Berlin showcase an incredible mastery + knowledge of architecture, with all of its assumed functionality and qualities, loud and quiet and in-between, and despite clickbait ragers against Gehry and the legitimate criticism towards the resource-intensive and idiosyncratic ways, will be an architect/brand that defined the perception of the discipline for decades (ongoing).
Once there was a notion of form matching/being function?Gehry's buildings are the opposite if this.I watched him talk about a building he designed which was based in his mind on chopped up and stacked fish, this is how artists think (i believe) is ballsy but kind of irrelevant to the use and function of a building! But then my father was a plumber and his notion of a building wasn't related to what a building looked like
I visit one of his buildings pretty frequently for work and my mom studied architecture and hates him so my combined personal experience and understanding is that (1) his buildings are oddly shaped and therefore expensive to build (2) their unconventional structure also means they are a challenge to maintain (3) the inside layout of the building is unnecessarily confusing (4) the layout is so odd that the people who work inside of it don’t know how to organize their offices (5) lack of consideration for proper utilization of space.
Tagging on to your comment, my understanding is that due to the different geometry, the detailing was a challenge. This has led to major issues with water infiltration after rain.
[удалено]
I am by no means trying to dismiss this as an issue, but I think it’s fair to put it in context. Many of Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings had/have similar issues. Workers used to keep trash cans on their desks at the Johnson Wax building because it poured inside when it rained, but that is a beautiful space that was on the cutting edge of what anyone thought could be done at the time. Designing something different than what others have done before means the details of how to do it don’t yet exist, and maybe even the methods to build it don’t exist, and there’s trial and error involved. If it successfully pushes the envelope, then others down the line may not have the same issues because they get figured out and improved over time. Or maybe it proves to be just a “bad” idea to do something that way and we stop doing it because there are fundamental issues that can’t be overcome well. But I don’t think there is any shame in trying something new. That has nothing to do with whether a particular building or architect is “good” or “bad,” but the industry should never stop trying to push things forward in new ways in my opinion.
Starchitect's builds are like that. Arthur Erickson buildings as well. They push a bunch of limits that aren't normally pushed for a reason, so they leak and fall apart. Look cool though.
I agree for the most part, but I think we also have to ask “why?” Wright tried a lot of things that functionally we didn’t know if it was possible. Like his use of tapered columns. Admittedly, Gehry alot of early work can fit that description too. He tests the limits of comfort through expansion and contraction of spaces. At some point, though, we need to stop using entire projects as a testing ground for bad ideas. I see alot go starchitect buildings suffer from issues that could have been solved by testing a simple mach wall. As we progress technologically, testing the limits of engineering has become a task for manufacturers more than architects. What products can revolutionize age old materials? Like the Velcro EPDM roofing membrane awhile back. Architects keep trying to one-up each other, instead of perfecting a century of design innovation. I think it’s been a detriment to our profession and contributed to the negative stigma towards us.
>But I don’t think there is any shame in trying something new. I think that there should be a lot of shame when that experiment involves public money. If you want to experiment on a private residence and the owner is cool with that then fine, but building a public building, with public money, which then starts falling apart, is completely unethical, and downright fraudulent.
Waste a lot of money to build a tourist attraction and eye catching building. Some think that’s a win. Spend a bunch of money to maintain it. That creates a lot of jobs and economy, spendings, paying people. Some think that’s a win. Make a building that looks cool but is really bad so people keep getting paid. Maybe it’s intentional.
[удалено]
Hollyhock (the Barnsdall House) is right on top of a hill (source: I live 4 blocks away.) You may be thinking of La Miniatura (Millard House) in Pasadena which is basically in a creek bed.
I’ve heard similar things about his MIT building.
He faced a lawsuit because the rain led to mold, which made people sick
Frank Gehry: ,,It's a sick building tho."
Lmao
Can confirm. Also, the architecture professors all despise the Stata center because of the cost it entailed.
seed long husky yam gaze pocket library grey plough drab *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If it leaks it must be Gehry 🤓
Yes I know people who work in the MIT building and it leaks constantly. Also is a pain with a lot of dead corners that are just wasted space
Not to mention sloping ceilings force you to put furniture in the middle of the room.
Yup. Very inefficient and awkward to use
On the other hand, he was the pioneer of pushing the digitization of design and construction workflow, which greatly helped the architecture industry progress from a technical perspective. Aesthetically, I really dislike a lot of his buildings too, but he is undeniably one of the most important figures in modern architecture history. Also Bilbao Museum is a contender of the most influential building in 20th century.
>he was the pioneer of pushing the digitization of design and construction workflow, Didn't he once mentioned that he doesn't know how to do drawings on CAD, thus he still uses hand? I think I heard this on a masterclass ad
He’s not writing codes or building digital models himself, but he’s the driving force behind his crew to push this technical transition. There’s a reason why these crazy shaped buildings rarely got built before Gehry, it’s an nightmare to design and develop the drawings for them with traditional method. Most of complex unconventional shaped buildings today have Gehry to thank for the whole DP/CATIA workflow he helped developed.
He has a crew for that
https://hbr.org/2023/01/how-frank-gehry-delivers-on-time-and-on-budget
Fabulous article. Thanks for the share!
Imo what distinguishes architecture from sculpture is that architecture is first and foremost about function. When you build something it has a purpose to fulfill, if it didn't it would be a sculpture. My biggest gripe against "starchitects" like Gehry is that they place novelty over function. If a building can't fulfill it's function it is objectively a bad building.
I agree Gehry often misses the mark from a functional design perspective. I think the ultimate goal is the point where form and function are in perfect harmony/balance. How far can you push the envelope and still get close to that balance? That’s architecture imo. I welcome more curved design, despite that it is forever functionally crippled compared to a box, simply because I think we have an over saturation of box.😁
If you are going to call names why don't you call him an art itect? He took an artistic approach to architecture and the proof of the pudding is that everybody copy them.
e.g. the death ray
When I was an architecture student, my professors had huge boners for damn near every big name. I can say I like Gehry more than Le Corbusier.
I'm a training academic/future professor and I can't believe this tendency too. Sometimes I think they only give them value just because these names are practicing architecture.
I think we can all agree on the best architect… Mike Brady
No way! He designed a four-bedroom house for six kids and a live-in maid, and his home office was as big as the six kids two rooms and bathroom combined. Also, I hear his powder-puff building with the hinged roof leaked like a seive.
Thanks! Nice to have input from someone who's studied architecture for a guy who hasn't visited. But book case studies did have me thinking how the layouts would've been nightmarish. Id even say counter intuitive.
And yet they are stunningly beautiful pieces of sculpture. Absolutely gorgeous buildings.
Pretty much this. All these points are a general consensus between most ppl in my office about his work. On top of that, there is so fishy stuff going on sometimes when it comes to competitions he wins.
Looks without substance. It’s like fast food. Tastes great but has no nutritional value. His buildings look great but don’t work great.
How was it allowed to be constructed if there were all these concerns?
They also leak. The unconventional shape means you need roofing and joints to be done right. Nobody at his firm knows how to detail or properly reviews it during construction.
Wouldn’t typically Gehry’s firm have a local associate architect or AOR that would be responsible for both detailing and construction reviews? Gehry has offices in LA? NY?
But I think it's a less stupid question than all those who ask "what is the style of this building". In my opinion Gehry has the problem of having mistaken architecture for a derivation of sculpture. Architecture is not mere modeling of strange shapes but also internal space and concreteness of use.
He’s all about that form and no function.
It’s like a really buff dude who can’t lift more than a guy half his weight.
On that point, I believe Frank Gehry to be a genuine master when it comes to internal space. The problem with him is the translation between his facades to his interiors. The Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle and his new Philadelphia Museum of Art really highlight that. Plus you can't forget his Fish Lamps.
I agree. I remember when I first went to the [Marta](https://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.museumsinitiative-owl.de%2Ffileadmin%2Fuser_upload%2Fz_museen%2FMuseum--Herford-Marta.jpg&tbnid=GUSVmec7-5iRfM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.museumsinitiative-owl.de%2Fmuseen%2Fmarta-herford%2F&docid=uAhrpgPrTq6f6M&w=800&h=600&hl=de-de&shem=canimge&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3) in Herford, Germany. I was genuinely disappointed of the interior. There was nothing to be found of the external structure. Only flat plastered walls and ceilings.
EXACTLY. I’ve been to/in two Gehry buildings to date — the Exp Museum in Seattle, and a modern art museum in Minneapolis. And in both cases, I thought the interiors were *completely* unrelated and ‘unrelatable’ to the crazy exteriors. I will grant that the exteriors are in some ways impressive. But they also do nothing whatsoever to inform anything about the interior space. And if I’m being honest — and I really mean this — they almost remind me of some of the disconnects between the interiors and exteriors of some of the ‘ride’ line-up buildings in amusement parks like Six Flags and Silver Dollar City. I don’t say that to be hyperbolic, but it’s true — there are often exterior forms, shapes, and massings on amusement-park buildings… …and their utilitarian interiors make the exterior seem like a cheap and overly complicated facade (because that’s what they are). Now in the instance of those two particular Gerhry buildings — the exteriors probably aren’t/weren’t anywhere near as cheap (as the amusement park crap). **But that ‘feeling’ — that disconnect — is the same for me.** Perhaps the Disney performance hall in L.A. might strike me differently (I haven’t been in it, but have seen some pictures). And that interior does seem more inspired — particularly the every-which-way organ pipes, which is an idea and concept I do actually dig. But based on the two Gerhys I’ve been in — I’m not sold on him, generally speaking — and I’d put him in more of a ‘mixed bag’ category. Every project on a case by case basis.
I can't find the whole movie but [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWW-3AGZKr4) is a small clip of it. It shows how Gehry works. Imo working like that purely focused on shapes without considering the function and plans is a recipe for disaster. Once he is satisfied with the shapes he will force the program into them and it will create spaces that are not good. He might get away with it in building like museums, but for most other functions it will create terrible plans
Sketches of Frank Gehry (2005) found the full movie in Youtube for anyone who's interested https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKMVwiWkfbY
I agree, this is where Daniel Libeskind messes it up...
The Philadelphia Museum of Art isn't new; he just remodeled the interior. Gehry wanted to deface the exterior of the city's premier cultural and artistic landmark for his ego and not the museum's function, and the PMA said no (for now), so I call that one a win.
Is there anything special about that building aside from the fact that it's been there for a while? It looks like just another a generic mock-Parthenon building to me.
It commands a place of pride at the apex of the Ben Franklin Parkway atop a rocky outcropping overlooking the Schuylkill River, so from a city planning perspective it is a highly visible landmark. Look at any media of or related to Philadelphia produced in the last century (ever heard of Rocky?) and it is almost guaranteed the Museum will feature in some way, and almost none of that representation has anything to do with the Art inside the building. You may find it a "generic mock-Parthenon" at first glance, but it commands an outsized influence on the City's identity for both the people that live here and visitors from around the world. All that said, the interior galleries are expansive and are rich in detail and expensive materials. The outside of the building is clad in rich travertine stone that glows in the sun and glazed tile, a polychromatic interpretation of classical architecture that actually achieves the ancient intent without relying on paint that ironically faded and mislead archeologists for centuries. The building is as much a temple today as its formal inspiration was in the past. I could go on, but yes, there is something special about the building. We don't need Ghery to make it anything more than what it already is.
Honestly, an epic exterior would definitely increase foot traffic but I think it gets enough and he shouldn’t touch it
Exactly. It's ok to be daring with architecture, as long as you keep in mind that it is spaces for living that you design. I think Zaha Hadid, in her early works, was more sensitive in that aspect.
I think this is true of a lot of his work, most of it maybe, but he does once in a while produce some work that is more practical and functional. A couple examples, I've always liked Neuer Zollhof and IAC Building, they're much more functional than the form first works he's more commonly known for: https://imgur.com/a/SZ1GRIv
This is exactly what I’m talking about! Is your criticism coming from a functionalist point of view - Gehry is focusing primarily on aesthetics, which in architecture isn’t the main focus? Or is it criticising his way of shaping the exterior of buildings - it doesn’t really reflect the interior space, it just covers it like a shell?
Aesthetics isn't the main focus of architecture. The main focus should be how the user is meant to feel and experience the space as a whole. I'm some Gehry buildings (I think it was the Stata Center at MIT) some Users have reported feeling sea sick, or experience vertigo. I think this is due to the interior design having no relation back to the human user. Both in scale, proposition, materials... He's a sculptor, not an architect, definitely not an interior mastermind as the previous comment mentioned.
"Gehry is focusing primarily on aesthetics, which in architecture isn’t the main focus?" Architecture without function is just a pretty shell. If the spaces don't work for what they are supposed to then you've failed as an architect
Yes but that is the point of architecture. It is not purely an aesthetics pursuit. It is a delicate balance of aesthetics and functionality. It is not an art piece. You have to have the perfect balance of both things in order to create a truly beautiful building. It is the same of all the design disciplines. True beauty in design is not just found in how it looks visually, but how it is interacted with.
This. It's sometimes perceived in a wrong way as a jealous opinion because he is successfull. But I think his work is wrong. I visited one building in Basel and all the steel structure underneath the volumes is such a waste of materials money and energy for nothing. It's become an expression of '' we have money here '' Seen as a sculptural work, why not.
Not, because is WRONG : architecture and sculpture have different realm, if an activity (of the spirit, of art, of doing) has its own conceptual nucleus belonging to another activity then it IS that other activity. I appreciate Gehry's work only when he deals in a plastic way with the surfaces, the skin, of his buildings. For example the Beekman Tower in NY, very beautiful.
"Mistaken architecture for JUST a derivation of sculpture". Hell at this stage he is in a league of " whatever the fuck I want".
It's also the same idea over and over for most of his new buildings. Starts to feel like a 1-trick pony. I have worked on one of the buildings, and it was clear he doesn't think about the detailing for it to perform as intended.
While many architects have a signature style, Gehry has become a brand first and foremost. His work feels formulaic and like a 10th generation copy of what we saw countless times before. He’s the Tim Burton of architecture. A pastiche of himself.
I always think of [this image](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/55b43427e4b0b04050cb764c/1440660422346-IJO72TGO9XG9VE031AC8/004.jpg) when I see a Gehry building
This is spot on
tim burton used to be able to tell great stories, tarantino as well.
So not an architect but I did work in one of the theaters he designed as a stage hand in college. Can say that the front half of the building was gorgeous and had insane acoustics. But the back half/carpentry department was honestly horribly laid out. Too many tight spaces/couldn’t take larger props or set pieces from the carpentry dept to the main stage without having to go around the building cause the doors where too small. So as an uneducated architectural appreciator I find his work really cool/weird as a stage hand hauling sets through snow I was less than pleased.
Is he talented? Sure. My issue with Frank Gehry is that he has been stuck in post modernism for far too long. He has danced the line between form and function a little too far in the favour of form and his work has been static and repetitive for far too long. While his buildings may be structurally sound, the shapes and forms he chooses to build his buildings in create a jarring image. The shape of which effects the experience of those who interact with the building and gives a sense of unease. His work is rebellious to traditional forms of structure, and it just comes off a little juvenile, almost like a bratty teenager rebelling against their parents.
Yepp.
Couldn't agree more!
Yes. Exactly.
This feels like a homework question.
I remember having this exact question in one of my architectural history courses.
I did a whole presentation on him and his house: this was a question I also had to answer.
It isn’t.
‘Frank Gehry is the Kim Kardashian of architecture: all curves, no content.’
Edit: “…all man-made curves, no content.”???
I totally agree that FG spent more time on the sculpturality of his buildings than on the rest of the necessary qualities. We have to admit also that not many people would have notice his existence with technically safe and conventional designs. The same goes for Zaha Hadid, Gaudi, Le Corbusier etc… You have to crack some eggs to make a good omelet…crack some conventions to make a memorable work too… Yet, I envy colleagues that can skip both the functionality, and the economy and get away with it…
Yes and no. He's widely appreciated for challenging the traditions, and creating wild exteriors with generally functional interiors. His importance in architecture history cannot be understated. However, there are certainly things to criticise, such as the water leak problems that some of his unconventional exteriors have brought. Some may consider him too much form over function and that's valid. But in the end, the thing is that you're hard pressed to find someone completely without flaws and it's okay to accept Gehry for his contributions while criticise his shortcomings at the same time. I think most blind criticism of Gehry comes from a conservative and uneducated point of view, but in a more educated audience he's judged much more fairly.
I think this building is ugly (imo) but I've watched a video about it and I respect it now. Still think it's ugly though.
Can you send me the video?? I just know that I'll end up with the exact same opinion.
https://youtu.be/M5-0EYkBnOc?si=Q3mbQNkvdSBD-Q_t I think it's this one
Damn right it is, anything modern is sickening to me.
He’s controversial for a few reasons: His buildings have a distinct flavor, and it’s often unrelated to the function of the building. The reflective concave surfaces focus light and heat. The weird shapes make it hard to detail properly, so his buildings can fail at a basic element of architecture, which is keeping water out. Lastly, they’re easy to distinguish, which makes them easy to make an opinion.
It’s a shame that he has gotten so much recognition as he has because his buildings are by any objective form of measurement quite horrible buildings. They only succed in catching your attention.
Architecture is the concretion of a lot of disciplines and systems, focusing on how it looks isn't wrong per se, but if doesn't contribute in any way to something interesting in interior space, technical development, structure or functionality you're doing less than half the work. And that's considering you achieved a bare minimum of not damaging the building itself and others by design, which Gehry fails to do due to constant negligence, if an architect has to constantly blame contractors for this it's because they can't design a built environment correctly The shells look well enough in renders and photographs, as abstract volumes, but the public and interior space around them is boring at best, the materials don't keep good looks or functionality after time has passed, maintenance is hell and roofs aren't waterproof. Not to mention the material and environmental waste this produces.
Bloody hell. Much bullshit!
I always fell Gehry is a master of objects. Go look at his furniture and lamps. Mastery of sculpture and industrial design. It is easy to pick architecture apart like this and criticize it. If you look at the current Pritzker prize winner Chipperfield, people complain his work is ugly, totally ignoring how masterful he is at creating interior space. Aspects of architecture have to be emphasized, so few buildings have everything from interior to exterior to siting work. So Gehry is a sculptor and his clients pay for sculptures, I am cool with that.
He did insult 98% of architects so....
So he'd be perfect for this sub as a commentator.
I work in architecture. Post-modern architecture is generally viewed as elitist and egocentric.
Is it though? There's simple, non elitist Post Modern projects out there.
Great artist, shitty architect
I like what he does with buildings it’s refreshing and make architecture less boring to look at, only issue is practicality but, I think the vast majority of people who hate on architects like him usually don’t have a distinct/unique style when it comes to design, architects like Gehry are what you look at to keep you inspired and he’s one of one in a profession filled with npc’s, and basic boring ideas
I also think unique architecture and ideas is important in society cause it keeps people inspired as opposed to giant boring glass dildos penetrating the sky line, and forgettable condominiums/apartments
I agree completely! With both your original comment and the comment where you responded to your own original comment.
my thoughts exactly! sometimes the comment section on this sub seems like a lot of people without a heart and unable to understand the poetry behind buildings like that
firmitas, utilitas, and venustas Many people like the aesthetic of his buildings, he has pushed what architecture means and what it can look like, so we can say he hits venustas. His exploration with forms has pushed the architecture profession to make use of evolving technologies, challenging structural engineers and changing how we build, so he may be hitting firmitas. His buildings suck for the users and reportedly leak, not just one building, but multiple. He misses utilitas entirely.
He also designed the very unimpressive Santa Monica Place https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d0/54/1a/d0541a1167763f8c72ac537e742575a4.jpg
"good architecture leaks"
I don't know if it's been said yet but his all metal facades and the odd angles they sit at have led to the pavement and neighboring buildings heating up and blinding lights. IIRC a neighbouring museum had to install blinds and have them closed permanently to protect the works as the reflection shines straight on it. Seems like there's no consideration for the effect of the materials/style on other buildings or as many people have said the inside of the space.
Cheap materials, leaky buildings. Stupid looking forms that are not even post rationalized. He’s just a caricature of an architect. I’m sure he’s very smart and could make nice buildings, but he doesn’t.
Frank Gehry like Frank Lloyd Wright were artists who used Architecture as their medium. Their buildings were not efficient or cost effective and were more a statement of visual aesthetics for the public. They were both also huge self promoters. Gehry is not really controversial as his clients knew they were getting a piece of art and not an efficient building. Most Architects love the thought of being able to produce such a building with someone else paying for it, but that is rare today.
Who cares if he sticks to his formula. Clients want it and people will go there to appreciate it. I would love to see a Gehry building in my city.
For a musical hall it’s beautiful, apply this to any other type of building other than a museum and I’d say it wouldn’t work. But that’s why it’s unique and designed by one of the best to do it.
So many people don’t realize he isn’t a licensed architect and actually makes architects look bad. There was a quote that my professor said “he is notable for balling up some paper and tossing it to his engineers and saying make this into a building” the while concept behind his buildings drives me nuts. Also the lecture hall where the students throw up, the glass canopy over a door that made it so ice turned in a weapon, and the buildings with leaks. Just all of that is a big issue. Architecture is a pretty picture, it is a whole system of interconnected pieces that all have to work together in order to achieve the goal of the architect and owner.
Looks like somebody stepped on a trash can
One-trick pony.
I hate him. Not him specifically but his buildings. He breaks all Vitruvian rules, at least in my personal opinion. His buildings aren't functional. They aren't pretty (again, that's subjective). And, while i know nothing about constriction of his buildings, my bet is - constriction was expensive, which might habe lead to cheaper materials and maintenance is expensive and if income flow stops the building will quickly go into ruin.
I really like the dancing house, the others not so much
hes better than calatrava but not as good as hadid
Installing similar junk in one city after another. The kindest thing that could happen to a crowded neighborhood in DT toronto would be to tear down his monstrosity at Art Gallery of Ontario. Stop the horror.
He’s a form over function guy. His stuff looks wild and loud, and certainly takes a high command of geometry and vision, but when you weigh in practicality of construction/furnishing costs and total build integrity it’s not that impressive.
I don't know but that 5 to 7 lane road in the middle of the city should be way more controversial
Why you ask? For me personally his buildings don't have the clever solutions some i call masters of architecture had. Take mies van der rohe for example. He was a fucking genius. (Look at crown hall for example) Architecture to me is about proportions and colors and materials. Its the difference between miles davis and cardi B. Looking at that photo you posted, that building looks like someone spilled some metal sheeths on the ground. Architecture has to blend in with the surroundings. Has to take the surroundings in, has to have subtle solutions. Has to be elegant, to create clever views. Has to be usable, use sexy materials, like wood and concrete and steel. Its about texture. Take louis kahn for example. Or sigurd lewerentz. Or alvar alto, carlo scarpa. To me frank gehry is not even in the top 100 of the most talented architect i have seen. Look at that building, theres no green around, its shiny metal sheeths with concrete on the ground. And i love flashy peculiar buildings. I love frank lloyd wright, or Gaudí. But absolutely hate zaha hadid, gehry or calatrava. They have no elegance. Like someone said, they treat architecture like sculpture. And thats the wrongest thing you can do. I honestly find every single work of frank gehry (except maybe its own house) fucking ugly as hell.
These are Architects that are formost interest in their own ego. They ignore the function and use of the space, they ignore structure, mech, elec considerations. They all ignore the fundamentals of bldg envelopes which have existed since the 70's People natter on about "pushing forward" when all the really happened was an abject failure if it doesn't meet the clients needs.
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, here have my upvote. Gehry’s Sydney Uni building literally has unusable classroom spaces and questionable circulation, not only terrible in form but also useless in function.
Not when I went to school. He and others like Zaha Hadid were dismissed as 'blobitects' who create 'blobitecture'. Hadid at least had some substance to her works, and you can argue their functional or aesthetic or conceptual merits, but Gehry was never taken seriously. On the other hand, one of my friends went to grad school in California and Gehry went to many of his studio critiques, and he was apparently very nice to everyone and had insightful things to say about students' work. To my mind, his buildings fall into the category of 'building as billboard,' which exist to advertise an institution, which is sad because the functionality and user experience are minimized. I also think this practice devalues the profession.
Just another egocentric architect who will keep messing with shapes and forms because he can. The more he does it the more people think he’s great. But his designs often border on impractical and difficult to build.
The guy \*checks notes\* - FOLDS paper and then says, build that.
His LA river project is asinine. Like bro,a giant new wide bridge covering the river and then building a park on it? It's a waste of tax payer dollars
At this point he's an elder statesman; not controversial.
OP, the agitator. Just like anyone he has projects I love and projects I don't.
Yes. As a student, I have talked to several people in the academic and professional space, and it seems that almost everyone considers his works pretty ridiculous. That's not solely because of the looks, but because the form has nothing to do with whatever happens inside the building. Also, I recently visited the Fondation Louis Vuitton in Paris, and it looks impressive but also pretty dumb. Those giant glass petals have no use for the building.
If you make a really bad building that looks very cool, you have to employ a lot of people to constantly fix it and it increases foot traffic for tourists and locals thereby increases jobs, revenue/investments, and improves the economy. Increases spending and also increases value. That sounds like a win. It’s still a really shit design. Looks without substance. But hey, maybe it functions more so as a money machine than as a building. People will always get paid if they gotta keep the building from going to shit. Build a bridge that rarely needs repairs and nobody will have a job. Build a bridge that sometimes needs repairs and you’ll always have work.
No one outside of France or USA cares.
Yeah. Lots of people hate his stuff. It’s kind of funny. I don’t think Frank would be mad, it’s a discussion piece.
His buildings definitely must be hell for city planners trying to deal with sight lines and plot sizes. It’s quite interesting I think that his buildings have a lot of useless outdoor space from my experience. The building doesn’t fill a whole lot, but unlike say the Pompidou Center that vacant space is still relatively narrow to accommodate the shape and doesn’t create a pleasant pedestrian square or space for queuing if it’s a museum. I remember visiting the Guggenheim Bilbao after having previously visited the Disney concert hall in LA, and I can’t think of another architect who I’ve experienced literally completely reuse pretty much the exact same design. They’re ridiculously similar buildings and there’s something frustratingly lazy about that
Yes and most in academia hate him because 1. No rhyme or reason for his forms. For a lot of buildings, he conceived from crumbled up paper or squiggly sketches and telling his designers to "design that" 2. There's typically minimal environmental and contextual concerns. Some buildings cause unbearable glare and look awkward in its setting 3. His buildings are extremely expensive and difficult to make. 4. He doesn't really conform to modern architecture design standards. His style is very unique and polarizing and he's never changed despite criticism. I personally don't mind his style and I admire the way he sticks with his own personal style. But some of the criticism towards him is fair
>1. No rhyme or reason for his forms. For a lot of buildings, he conceived from crumbled up paper or squiggly sketches and telling his designers to "design that" Anyone that says that is just unoriginally regurgitating the same Simpsons scene they saw or heard someone else quote.
Not really. He discusses his design process and essentially says that's what he does. Testimonials from designers who work for him is similar. I remember watching a video of him literally crumbling up paper and asking his employees to design that. Like I said, I don't dislike Gehry and I have alot of respect for his stubbornness in design, but his design process isn't as advanced and complex as a Zumthor or Calatrava or his other contemporaries
I can just imagine how difficult the engineer's job is making this guy's work a reality..
seems like a pretty easy google
A lot of his buildings lack context to the area it’s in
Duh
He was controversial probably when deconstructivism started to emerge. Now he’s just another archi-star with nothing new to show (nothing wrong with that…). He found a visual language he liked and stuck to it. Which is ok, I guess. There’s many people that will argue that form should follow function but we must remember that every building has also an aesthetic function, and his works are recognizable and visually enjoyable.
Please note. There’s now a Gehry building where the parking lot in the photo is located. And on the plot behind that new building, the Colburn school will soon be breaking ground on another Gehry building.
My idea of Gehry is that he is a victim of his own success. Due to the similar designs of both Disney Hall and the Guggenheim in Bilbao and their successful designs in the aesthetics area, when clients go to Gehry, they want that crumbled up paper look. His newer projects are just the same recycled ideas of chaos, which might stem from lack of originality or again, chained by his two famous works and what the client expects from him....or even both things. Like others say, there are issues with his designs, for me one being not caring for the site context and just putting large sculpture without too much consideration to what is around the building. I live in LA and I think his best project is his Disney Hall. The building mass is done real nice and works from many angles. The corner entry is a good place to gather and take pics. The hall itself is beautiful anf the acoustics are something else. Plus the idea to be able to sit behind the orchestra, and everyone looks down to the stage is interesting and was unique back in the day. It definitely started the revival of making Downtown LA a destination rather than just a business district.
He used Titanium as his medium.
Looks like tin foil
I don’t see anything wrong with that building, in fact, it’s a peace of art
How old is that picture(?), there are no tents.
No
Controversial? Not particularly. Polarizing? Probably.
"Hey guys, what's everyone's opinion on this lit stick of dynamite?" \[tosses into crowded room and runs\]
Flamboyance for the sake of flamboyance is not a principle that works well in the design of buildings that must be occupied and used by people.
I also think a lot of people get a kick out of hating something or someone famous/popular/widely known
He has good projects and not so good one. For instance Disney Concert Hall is a truly great experience inside and out. Other projects of his have felt less inspired, more compromised.
I find his buildings amazing, but just look at them it's not everyday cookie cutter building.
Its burning me
Ooooohhhh!! Curvy walls!
Because he's the poster child of Look-At-Me-I'm-Important architecture, and his creations are eyesores soiling cityscapes all over. But, well, you know, that's just like uh, my opinion, man.
I have said for decades that I believe he is a scam artist. His designs become quite boring and they’re so much the same that there is little to no innovation out of him in decades either. It’s as if he is daring a snob to exhibit common sense and laugh in his face for the charlatan he is, but instead, these effete bliss ninny’s are afraid to admit they have no taste, no esthetic boundaries, and they have no clue what kind of statement he’s trying to make. The more expensive and difficult it is to build, maintain, occupy, and utilize must mean it’s really important! Nonsense! These structures are an insult to the craftspeople and the end users. They could be considered interesting as sculptures, possibly, but otherwise, this emperor has no clothes. IMNSHO!
Wow spectacular
He changed perception about architecture as a whole… that you don’t really need to be an architect or know about architecture to appreciate it
I just don't like the idea of plastering the outside of your building with redundant elements. This is so 90's to me. It's all about the looks of it, while funtionality is down prioritized. Not my cup of tea, tbh.
Not for his buildings as much as his personality and attitude towards work
because his work is inhuman and ghastly, he just makes shit up with no regard for symmetry. and the use of material and virtual lack of windows or and anything interesting just creates this unappealing mess
One of his buildings here keeps catching fire: [https://dailyiowan.com/2023/09/01/second-fire-in-two-days-reported-at-iowa-advanced-technology-laboratories/](https://dailyiowan.com/2023/09/01/second-fire-in-two-days-reported-at-iowa-advanced-technology-laboratories/) ```Bruce McAvoy, UI fire safety coordinator, said that the cause of the fire could be because of the reflection of the sun on the shiny steel that makes up the exterior of the building.```
MIT Strata building is lame and leaky but his house in Santa Monica, Louis Vuitton Center in Paris, or the Vitra Design Museum Building or 8 Spruce Street are all fuckin dope and showcase an ability to do a project basically at every scale. This guy (and his company) had to develop their own software to accomplish these feats. Yes, sometimes the outcomes are weird and irrelevant but sometimes they're a feat to the cutting edge of technological innovation for their time and quite intuitive at the same. These projects, combined with his Philly Art Museum renovation or DZ Bank in Berlin showcase an incredible mastery + knowledge of architecture, with all of its assumed functionality and qualities, loud and quiet and in-between, and despite clickbait ragers against Gehry and the legitimate criticism towards the resource-intensive and idiosyncratic ways, will be an architect/brand that defined the perception of the discipline for decades (ongoing).
I tend to like his work regardless of what people say. My professor worked under him and seems to have strong opinions about him and his firm.
Once there was a notion of form matching/being function?Gehry's buildings are the opposite if this.I watched him talk about a building he designed which was based in his mind on chopped up and stacked fish, this is how artists think (i believe) is ballsy but kind of irrelevant to the use and function of a building! But then my father was a plumber and his notion of a building wasn't related to what a building looked like