This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Delirious Gehryopolis — Brooklynian

Delirious Gehryopolis

laura b
edited November -1 in Prospect Heights
Another take on the Atlantic Yards question: The latest New York magazine features an article by Kurt Anderson, arguing that Brooklyn should embrace the Gehry-designed architectural gift that Forest City Ratner wants to give us.

What do the DHers think? Personally, as a member of the "the city’s BAM-loving chattering class" mentioned below, I think Gehry's brand is a little overextended. But more than that, doesn't Anderson overlook the fact that the Gehry building just one small part of a cluster of 17 crap highrises?

I've pasted excerpts below, or you can read "Delirious New York" on the magazine's website.

From "Delirious New York":

How can we be a city of glamorous cutting-edge architecture without finally getting our own Frank Gehry building or two or—hell, sure, why not—nineteen? The first, under construction on the West Side Highway in Chelsea, is a nine-story headquarters for Barry Diller’s InterActiveCorp. It’s a new Gehry iteration; instead of an exploded giant tin can, it will be boxier, more traditionally building-esque, with townhouse-size modules and wedding-cake setbacks wrapped in translucent textured glass. “We’re gonna do more things behind there, too,” Gehry says, suggesting a future Gehryfication of Tenth Avenue. “Housing and stuff.”

And next spring, construction should begin on the first Gehry skyscraper on the planet, a 74-story apartment tower (plus hospital and school) just south of the Brooklyn Bridge. Given the string of abortive New York projects he’s been through (like the doomed ground-zero theater center), he doesn’t want to publish his design for Beekman Tower “until they’re sure they’re going to build.” But he showed me the renderings. For a Gehry building, it’s conservative, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing—a classic Manhattan skyscraper with several setbacks. But for a Manhattan high-rise it’s radical, since it will likely be clad in titanium—creased and wrinkled as if it’s a few yards of draped fabric rather than a dozen acres of metal.

Bruce Ratner of Forest City is the developer, as he is of Piano’s Times building and of what will be a whole new Brooklyn downtown between Atlantic and Flatbush—a Nets arena plus a residential quarter as large as Rockefeller Center with sixteen buildings, all by Gehry. Freddy Ferrer called it “the twin brother of Bloomberg’s West Side stadium boondoggle,” but that’s wrong. The arena is the anchor of a thoroughly imagined project by an actual developer; basketball seasons have 41 home games instead of 8, thus generating more street life; and the architecture will be the work of a single-minded genius, not a big corporate firm. Simply because enormous redevelopment projects are often or even usually misguided (Robert Moses’s Lower Manhattan Expressway, the Jets’ stadium, Freedom Tower) doesn’t mean we ought to oppose them by default. Westway, for instance, should have been built, and so, probably, should Gehry’s Atlantic Yards.

The skewed, cartoony angles of the buildings, which range from 20 to 60 stories, would in one fell swoop create a second, sui generis Brooklyn skyline encompassing the familiar, phallic old Williamsburgh Bank Building. Gehry’s goal is for it to “look like it developed over time. Usually I would bring in other architects to make it look like a city, not like a development.” But many hands at the drawing table (or the CAD screen) is no guarantee of urban quality either: At Battery Park City the result has been, as Ratner says, “a mishmash of architecture.”

Thirty years ago, as the city entered a grotty, seemingly permanent twilight, Red Grooms and Rem Koolhaas produced their retorts to the gloom, the jolly walk-through installation Ruckus Manhattan and the alternative-urban-history book Delirious New York, respectively. Gehry’s scheme seeks to be a latter-day consummation of those visions. It could be magnificent. Of course, executed poorly—say, Battery Park City populated by Arquitectonica’s cheesy, strenuously fun Westin Hotel in Times Square—it could also be dreadful. Until now, most of Ratner’s buildings have ranged from the uninspired to the bad, like his shopping center across from the Atlantic Yards. Even he admits the Atlantic Center mall is “not up to snuff. Philip Johnson did a first design, but I made a decision not to use him. I have to blame myself. I’ve been talking for ten years about trying to use ‘design architects’ instead of ‘developer architects.’ ”

[....]
Given Ratner’s track record, I asked Gehry if at first he mistrusted Ratner’s professed new dedication to quality and innovation. “Yeah. Yes, I did.” And how did he get over his skepticism? “I’m still getting over it,” he says, although so far, “the budget busts have not been architectural ones. He’s always voted with me on the side of the architectural. He runs into roadblocks sometimes in his company, but it has not been cataclysmic.”

Ratner isn’t spending 15 percent extra on these new buildings simply because he wants to underwrite cool design. He understands that in Brooklyn, just as his quotas of apartments for poor people and construction jobs for women and minorities were ways of winning over key constituencies, hiring Gehry was politics by other means, sure to please the city’s BAM-loving chattering class. “The spirit of what you say,” Ratner agrees when I posit this theory, “is accurate.”

There will be many more political hoops to jump through, and what Gehry calls his “lefty do-gooder” side is under challenge. “Citizens’ groups all over the world are backfiring on good architecture. They should back off when somebody knows what they’re doing.” One of his daughters lives in Carroll Gardens, a mile from the site, and she, he says with a chuckle, “is probably one of those out protesting.”

[....]
Gehry is 76, Frank Lloyd Wright’s age when he got the Guggenheim job. Like Wright (like most architects), Gehry is not exactly fulsome with praise for his peers. When I asked which new New York buildings he liked, he laughed. “I guess I like the Meier buildings. I like the simplicity of [Cesar] Pelli’s towers”—such as the handsome and, yes, very glassy new Bloomberg L.P. headquarters at 59th and Lex. “I used him as a model for Beekman, his way of handling tall buildings; he doesn’t get it fussy.” Like Wright, Gehry is an out-of-towner, a brilliant eccentric, but also, improbably, the great brand-name architect of his time. If Atlantic Yards is completed on schedule, in 2016, he will still be four years younger than Wright was when Wright watched the Guggenheim—his first New York City commission and final masterpiece—being finished.

Comments

  • Off the subject but on the subject- Frank was on the Arthur (the aardvark) episode that aired yesterday. He did a lot of talking, but didn't do a damn thing to improve upon the design on the treehouse...
  • I go an issue of the fort green paper at my door over the weekend, apparently Ratner has sent Gehry to the drawing board to "downsize", of course we all know it will just go back to the non-creeped design, but a notable event nonetheless.
  • I would feel a lot better about the aesthetics of the lovely Gerhy buildings if I did not have to worry about by the toilets in my house backing up or my block choked with traffic all day long because they are building without the need for any building permits or compliance with the city building codes, They are free to jam these huge building onto the tiny site without any regard for the surrounding neighborhood and its infrastructure. That is, I think, what most people's objections are. (Aside for the eminent domain which has to do with the abuse of an owner's rights)
  • I don't particularly care for Gehry's architecture, even if these are, like they say, conservative by his standards. While I appreciate breaking away from the "glass box" style of architecture that dominated the 50s, 60s, and 70s, I don't understand the purpose of architecture where the form has no function. So many of Gehry's buildings seem to me to be way more sculpture than architecture, and a lot of them, methinks, look kind of like piles of garbage. This is cool when he builds his house out of scrap metal, it's a nice idea and a nice way to reuse and recycle and all. It's pointless when you're building it out of expensive titanium.

    It's pretty natural to compare any odd shaped piece of architecture to the Guggenheim- but the Guggenheim serves a purpose. The spiral design allows for the visitor to pass every exhibit in the museum without dealing with stairs and floors and maps and such. Granted, it's got it's drawbacks, but at least it has a point. Throwing up giant skyscrapes that shoot off at all crazy angles and stuff just seems silly, and will look pretentious and outdated probably by the time they are completed.

    Has anyone been to the Prada store downtown? Rem Koolhaas, who is mentioned in this article, designed it... It's obnoxious, though I suppose an effective marketing ploy to get people to think the clothes there are art and pay 50 dollars for a pair of socks. It's a picture perfect example of too much form, too little function, to paraphrase a poster in another thread that was completely unrelated. It's cool to look at for a few minutes, but then you're like... whoa... why?
  • A few comments:

    a. I have a lot of respect for Frank Gehry's work; I understand why he is so beloved by so many architecture critics. At same time I don't connect with his work, as I don't connect with Richard Meier's work. I do, however, connect with Santiago Calatrava and Renzo Piano and think they are amazing. It's a matter of taste, among other things.

    b. Contrary to Anderson's assertion, Gehry, if we are to believe what he said in that wonderfully independent newspaper, "The Brooklyn Standard" is in fact one of Brooklyn's "native sons" ... prodigal son, perhaps, but still Brooklyn born (if not bred).

    c. A little off-topic here, but one pretty amazing architectural gem that has been constructed in NYC over the past 5 to 10 years or so that Anderson so sadly fails to mention is Raimund Abraham's "The New Austrian Cultural Institute" on 52nd Street in Manhattan.

    d. I think it would be great to have a Gehry building here in Brooklyn. I have no problem with that. But an ocean of Gehry buildings? Absolutely not. I think it's a huge mistake ... and using Battery Park City as an example to justify Ratner's decision to go the "design" (versus "developer" huh? what I am I missing here ... ? Bruce Ratner: Patron of the Arts ... I don't think so) route is a canard.

    e. Assuming the project is going ahead (which it appears it is) it would be my preference to give Gehry the stadium, the anchor as they say, and let him go to town and BE FRANK GEHRY in all his creative glory ... and find another "design" architect to do the residential portion (constructed in phases so that market assumptions can be adjusted over time). And, as well, find a local urban landscape architect, perhaps hired under the auspices of the residential architect.

    f. I have a lot of thoughts on this ... but I'll stop here.
  • nothing else i can say that hasn't been said a thousand times about already...

    1) we don't need an arena, no matter how beautiful or thought-out, in this neighborhood

    2) we don't need to support a lousy basketball franchise like the Nets in Brooklyn

    3) the neighborhood is growing just fine, last time I checked, the way it is


    in other words, burn the bitch down..
  • my two favorite parts of this thread:

    "burn the bitch down"

    and

    "canard"

    ...the juxtaposition is wonderful.
  • Subject: Replies

    There were two letters to the editor concerning this article, one by me (I assure you the original, unedited version I sent was much funnier and clearer):

    The usually astute Kurt Andersen was woefully off target regarding the enormous Bruce Ratner development in Brooklyn [“The Imperial City: Delirious New York,” November 28]. It’s horribly out of scale with the character of Brooklyn (we’ve long since ceased to view Manhattan as an urban role model), and it will destroy the continuity of three thriving neighborhoods, absorb hundreds of millions of tax dollars with little or no real return, and give Downtown Brooklyn permanent traffic gridlock. Given the truly awful aesthetics and construction quality of his other developments in Brooklyn, Ratner had little choice but to attach the Frank Gehry carrot. Anyone who chases that carrot must also still be looking forward to Daniel Libeskind’s World Trade Center.
    —Michael Rogers, Brooklyn

    Like Bruce Ratner’s previous developments in Brooklyn, the Atlantic Yards stadium complex is not going to seamlessly merge a new development with an existing and vital cityscape. It seems totally appropriate, then, that Bruce Ratner would choose an architect whose buildings are rootless, equally out of place wherever they are erected, always supplanting on-the-ground urban realities with whimsical promises of a future that never quite arrives. Does Brooklyn need Gehry’s spectacular, megalomaniacal brand?
    —Stuart Schrader, Brooklyn
  • Subject: Re: Replies

    Stuart wrote: Like Bruce Ratner’s previous developments in Brooklyn, the Atlantic Yards stadium complex is not going to seamlessly merge a new development with an existing and vital cityscape. It seems totally appropriate, then, that Bruce Ratner would choose an architect whose buildings are rootless, equally out of place wherever they are erected, always supplanting on-the-ground urban realities with whimsical promises of a future that never quite arrives. Does Brooklyn need Gehry’s spectacular, megalomaniacal brand?
    —Stuart Schrader, Brooklyn
    I think it is interesting that after the '93 bombing, the Port Authority went through a series of design exercises exploring ways in which, to use your term, 'merge' the WTC complex into the surrounding neighborhood. When the WTC was first built, there was little life in the area over and above the 9-to-5 world of Wall Street, so by creating a kind of city within a city, the hope was to attract more business and suburban workers downtown into an environment where they would feel safe and comfortable. Metro-Tech, like the WTC complex before it (and granted, to a much smaller scale), has become world within itself.

    Budget constraints prevented the PANYNJ from implementing the bulk of these ideas. A good thing perhaps, given the events of 9/11 ... But there is that lesson to be learned from both the original WTC development and Metro-Tech. The inorganic nature of the Gehry plan is really, really bad and it's difficult to see how it will benefit the existing community in any tangible way ...
Sign In or Register to comment.