Paul Goldberger Comments on Progess at Ground Zero

Paul Goldberger, Architecture Critic

Question: How do you feel about the progress on One World Trade Center?

Paul Goldberger: I’m disappointed in where things are at Ground Zero right now.  I think it’s sad, on the other hand, I do think the people involved are trying reasonably hard, under the circumstances.  But there’s really not a great deal of vision there.  It begins really right back the morning of September 12th when Governor Pataki, who had the most authority in this situation, made the decision to keep everybody in place who was a player in this situation, the Port Authority, which owned the World Trade Center, the developer, Larry Silverstein, who had leased the Twin Towers.  And most importantly, to keep the program in place.  The program—by program, I mean the functions of the buildings.  So, you know, the World Trade Center was 10 million square feet of office space plus some retail and some other commercial space, that’s what was transferred into the new project with the addition of a memorial and some cultural facilities and the, the prescription that it be in a different physical format, obviously, not 210-story towers again, but spread out around the site in a different way. 

But you know, we never really looked into completely different uses for the site.  We never really thought from point zero, we might say, about what the ideal thing to do there would be.  Instead we took a program that goes back to the original World Trade Center in the early ’60s, and it was never really that effective or successful for most of its life, and decided to replicate it. 

And then came all the complex political things that flowed from that, so it’s taken an inordinately long time, it’s cost a huge amount of money, and we still don’t really have anything that I think the world can look at and say, “This is a great achievement that shows us that the United States has come back from this thing in a noble way.” The office building that’s going up is sort of okay, but it’s not, I don’t think going to be a distinguished or particularly beautiful building.  It’s not the… it doesn’t show all that we are capable of in terms of architecture. 

Similarly, the other office buildings that have been planned for the site, most of which are on hold now because of the economy, are better than the average piece of junk on Third Avenue, that’s true, but that’s not a very ringing endorsement. 

And then for this site that is so critical to the eyes of the world, where we had the opportunity to show the world that we could do something that was bold and visionary, we have really not succeeded at doing that. 

I think a great tower would have had a place there.  Either a pure tower, just as a symbol, like the Eiffel Tower of the 21st Century, we might say. Or, remembering that the United States is, after all, the birthplace of the skyscraper—a building form that we’ve now given to the world that is now common all around the world—what better place, if we’re looking to show the world that in fact we have not been defeated by this attack, than to come back to this place, in this country, in this time and build the most advanced skyscraper we could possibly imagine.  The one that will bring the art of skyscraper design forward yet again. 

And instead, we are not doing that.  We’re doing a building that is not that different from a lot of commercial buildings built everywhere, and in fact, not as good as many of them.  It’s going to be very tall, it’ll have a little more flair to it than the old Twin Towers did, but, you know, it’s not what it might have been.

Recorded on June 22, 2010
Interviewed by David Hirschman

2010 P/A Awards: Preston Scott Cohen

[brightcove vid=80148287001&exp=403535636&w=300&h=225]

Video interview via Architect TV.

David Dillon, longtime Dallas Morning News architecture critic, dies at 68

Hat tip to Dallas Morning News.

I have enjoyed reading Dillon’s critic’s over the years.  I am sorry to learn of his passing.

 

David Dillon, for 25 years architecture critic of The Dallas Morning News and one of the country’s foremost writers on the subject, died early Thursday of a heart attack at his home in Amherst, Mass. He was 68.

A wordsmith of finely chiseled phrases and sometimes devastating wit, Mr. Dillon brought Dallas architecture to national attention, and he introduced local readers to important architectural developments elsewhere. His singular critical voice helped shape civic debate on issues across North Texas, from underdevelopment in South Dallas to the evolution of the downtown Arts District to sprawl in the northern suburbs. He wrote as avidly about little-known local architects doing good work as about international stars.

Read complete article by Scott Cantrell here.

Gehry Partners Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in Las Vegas

This is one of my favorite Gehry buildings.  What is your favorite?  Hat tip to The Architects Newspaper. 

THE ENTRANCE TO THE LOU RUVO CENTER USES GEHRY'S SIGNATURE STEEL FOLDS TO CREATE AN INVITING CANOPY.

Frank Gehry once vowed never to build in Las Vegas, a place where serious architecture is submerged in a tsunami of kitsch, or fatally compromised by commercial imperatives. Larry Ruvo, who made a fortune as Nevada’s chief liquor distributor, refused to take “no” for an answer. He has been a passionate supporter of Alzheimer’s research since the loss of his father, Lou, to that disease.

Having formed an alliance with a major medical institution, he wanted a building that would be a magnet. He persuaded Gehry that this was a worthy cause and gave him creative freedom to design a research facility linked to an events space that would play a supporting role by generating income from rentals. The Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health was inaugurated last Friday.

The center, while largely dedicated to research and treatment, also has an events space to help support its medical mission.

 Link to full article here.

Send in the Clouds – MIT in bubbly bid for London Olympic Tower

Thanks to writer Julie V. Iovine and the folks at The Architects Newspaper, I came across this project.  It looks fantastic and I would love to see it built.  Although I admit I am not so sure I would ever reach the top to put my head in the “clouds”.  My fear of heights and intended airy and light feel of the structure might stand in my way. This of course assumes I ever travel to London.

A proposal spearheaded by MIT's Senseable City Lab envisions an inhabitable sculpture for London's 2012 Olympics.

All Photos Courtesy Raise the Cloud

In early November, British architects discovered with dismay that Mayor Boris Johnson of London was conducting a secret competition to select a designer for a $33 million beacon for the 2012 Olympics. Brushing aside the standard procurement process—which involves publishing a notice in The Official Journal of the European Communities—Johnson invited 30 firms to submit proposals for a prominent addition to the city’s skyline.

A Guggenheim-like spiral wrapped in cable netting will support the clouds, with much of the structure open to the public.

Called “the Cloud,” the structure starts with a slender spire that is ringed by a spiraling ramp, stabilized with a cable net, and sturdy enough for strollers and bicyclists to mount to a sky full of bubbly spheres. This upper aerie would host three types and sizes of spheres: The largest and most structural are Buckminster Fuller–type geodesic domes; next, cable-net bubbles would cluster around observation decks; and then, blurring the edge, bunches of hot-air-filled balloons create that head-in-the-clouds feeling.

The EFTE inflatables would be covered in a new type of distributed LED that is readable from any direction and could provide a constant stream of information, including game statistics, weather forecasts, traffic advisories, alien greetings, and presumably, advertisements.

Olympic visitors at play in "the Clouds."

Intended to stand 400 feet tall, the Cloud will barely have a footprint, sustainability-wise. Photovoltaic film, whose effect will be magnified by mirrors, is spread over the spheres. And while visitors can only ascend the one-kilometer ramp on foot or by bicycle, they can descend by means of a “regenerative lift” that uses the same braking system as a Prius to recoup electricity, as will water-wheels embedded in the column through rain collection.

The exact size of the Cloud remains to be determined. Taking a page from the grassroots innovations of the Obama campaign, the team has organized a structure that can expand or contract depending on donations. The density of the cloud cover—the number of spires and individual clouds, in fact—will depend on how many people sign on to contribute.

London Mayor Boris Johnson envisions a beacon for the Olympics, and mit's is only one of several proposals thought to be under consideration.

While the contenders—said to include Foreign Office Architecture—have yet to be named, one team is already spreading the word about their entry on Facebook. Carlo Ratti, architect and director of MIT’s SENSEable City Lab, joined forces with German engineer Joerg Schlaich, Arup, artist Tomas Saraceno, corporate sponsor Google UK, and others to create what Ratti described as “not a building for London but a symbol of global ownership.”

The Facebook page Raise the Cloud was launched on November 11 with 1,000 fans and counting, according to Ratti, who would like to see as many as three spires covered in clouds at the as-yet-unselected site. “We can build our Cloud with five million pounds or 50 million,” he said. “The flexibility of the structural system will allow us to tune the size of the Cloud to the level of funding that is reached.” Whether or not selected by Mayor Johnson to be the official 2012 Olympic Tower, the Cloud is certain to attract plenty of air time.

I. M. Pei to Receive British Royal Gold Medal

Via Bustler

Chinese-born American architect I. M. Pei, who is best known in Europe for his transformation of the Louvre in Paris, has been named today as the recipient of one of the world’s most prestigious architecture prizes, the Royal Gold Medal.

Laureate of the British Royal Gold Medal: I. M. Pei (Photo: Owen Franken)

Given in recognition of a lifetime’s work, the Royal Gold Medal is approved personally by the Queen of England and is given to a person or group of people who have had a significant influence “either directly or indirectly on the advancement of architecture”.

I. M. Pei is one of the most prolific architects of all time having completed over 170 projects and more than 50 master plans. At the age of 92, he remains actively engaged in architecture. His work easily spans the divide between commercial and cultural architecture, and he is equally respected and sought after by clients in all fields.

Glass Pyramid at the Louvre in Paris, France by I. M. Pei (Photo: pmorgan)

Ieoh Ming Pei (always known as I. M.) is a Chinese American architect, born in China in 1917. He traveled to the United States in 1935 to study architecture, and never returned to live in his home country. He graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and received a Masters degree from Harvard Graduate School of Design, where he studied under Gropius and Breuer, coming under the influence of the International Style which was to inspire his work for almost 70 years. His first commission was for the noted planner-developer William Zeckendorf: the Miesian Mile High Center in Denver. He set up his own practice in 1955. His best known buildings are probably the National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, Colorado (1961-67), the East Wing of the National Gallery Washington DC (1968-78), the John F Kennedy Library, Boston (1965-79), the Bank of China, Hong Kong (1982-89), the Grand Louvre expansion and renovation (1983-93) and the Miho Museum in Shiga, Japan (1991-97). In recent years he has completed major museum projects in Luxembourg, China and Qatar. His only building in the UK is a private commission: a tiny pavilion in Wiltshire.

Deutsches Historisches Museum (German Historic Museum) in Berlin, Germany. Extension premises by I. M. Pei (Photo: Mazbln)

I. M. Pei has been honored by America, France, Germany, Japan and the UK where he is an Honorary Academician of the Royal Academy of Arts (1993). He has been awarded the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Medal for Architecture (1976); the American Institute of Architects – the Gold Medal (1979); the American Academy of Arts & Letters – Gold Medal for Architecture (1979); La Grande Médaille d’Or of l’Académie d’Architecture, France (1981), the Pritzker Architecture Prize (1983); the Praemium Imperiale for lifetime achievement in architecture, Japan (1989); Officier de La Légion d’Honneur, France (1993) and the Thomas Jefferson Medal for distinguished achievement in the arts, humanities, or social sciences (2001).

Bank of China Tower, Hong Kong by I. M. Pei (Photo: WiNG)

Speaking from New York, I. M. Pei said of the honour,

‘It is a great honor to receive the Royal Gold Medal from the Royal Institute of British Architects. I am humbled indeed to read the names of those who have preceded me as recipients. I look forward to attending the ceremony in February, and to thanking personally RIBA President Ruth Reed and the Honors Committee, and David Adjaye, who nominated me.’

I. M. Pei was nominated for the 2010 Royal Gold Medal by David Adjaye. His citation concludes with a personal tribute: ‘When I began my studies in architecture, I. M. Pei was already a giant in the cannon of greats. His work seemed effortlessly capable of creating extraordinary clarity out of complex and conflicting demands. His is an agile ability, working with Heads of State, Kings and Queens, “hard nosed” developers and non profit institutions, in each case creating revealing, extraordinary works of precision with quality and detail.

‘I remember as a young student first visiting the Louvre in Paris and marveling at its extraordinary ability to unify and modernize what was a much loved but disparate institution and behold its magnificent, gravity defying, glass pyramid. He became a role model for me as a young architect.’

RIBA President Ruth Reed, who chaired the Honors Committee which selects to Royal Gold medal winner said,

“Chairing the Honors Committee was my very first duty as President and it was an honor for me too. The Royal Gold Medal is a most auspicious award and we have chosen in I. M. Pei a very special winner. He is one of the greats of 20th – and 21st – century architecture; a man whose work I have always admired. A list of his influences and those he has influenced reads like a roll-call of the Modern Movement. Seldom has such a reward been so overdue or so just.”

I. M. Pei will be presented with the Royal Gold Medal on February 11, 2010 at a ceremony at the Royal Institute of British Architects in London, when the 2010 RIBA International and Honorary Fellowships will also be presented.

The Royal Gold Medal was inaugurated by Queen Victoria in 1848 and is conferred annually by the Sovereign on ‘some distinguished architect for work or high merit, or on some distinguished person whose work has promoted either directly or indirectly the advancement of architecture.’

Previous winners have included Sir Charles Barry, Sir George Gilbert Scott, Alfred Waterhouse, Sir Edwin Lutyens, Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, Charles Voysey, Frank Lloyd Wright, Le Corbusier, Walter Gropius, Alvar Aalto, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Kenzo Tange, Ove Arup, Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, Louis Kahn, James Stirling, Berthold Lubetkin, Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Oscar Niemeyer, Jean Nouvel, Rem Koolhaas, Toyo Ito and Alvaro Siza.

This year’s RIBA Honors Committee was chaired by the President of the RIBA, Ruth Reed with David Adjaye OBE, architect, Adjaye Associates; Edward Cullinan CBE, architect, Edward Cullinan Architects; Max Fordham, Environmental Engineer, Max Fordham Partnership; Anne Lacaton, architect, Lacaton & Vassal (Paris); and Laura Lee, Client, Maggie’s.

Venice Biennale creative directors named

28 September 2009 | by Gemma Battenbough | Architecture & Design

Architectural photographer John Gollings and Melbourne-based architect Ivan Rijavec will head the creative team for the Australian Pavilion at the upcoming 12th Venice International Architecture Biennale.

The team’s two-part ‘NOW + WHEN Australian Urbanism’ exhibition will highlight three of Australia’s most interesting urban regions as they are ‘now’, before dramatically representing futuristic urban environments as they may be ‘when’ we reach 2100.
 
Opening in September 2010, the exhibition will feature a range of dazzlingly visceral digital stereoscopic (three-dimensional) images, which will fill the two-level Philip Cox-designed Australian Pavilion and represent both the NOW and WHEN components.

On the pavilion’s upper level, NOW will feature current urban environments in Sydney, Melbourne and Surfers Paradise. Stereoscopic visuals will show contrasting views of these cities from macro-scapes at 20,000 feet to ‘helicoptering’ views of urban and architectural icons at close range. All three cities will be filmed at dusk, when the “Australian urban spectacle becomes luminous and articulate in conveying the way our cities work”, the proposal states.
 
On the pavilion’s lower level, WHEN will imagine Australian urban spaces in 91 years time, with the intent of “catapulting urban debate into eye-popping visceral entertainment set in a soundscape”. Australian architects will be asked to submit 3D entries for inclusion by entering ‘Ideas for Australian Cities 2100’, a national competition. A range of entries will then be chosen focusing on the creative potential of architecture.
 
Two stereo screens mounted back-to-back at the rear of the upper and lower exhibition spaces will be the focus of the installation. An urban themed black and white geometric matrix will be projected on the walls, floors and ceilings of both levels leading to two stereo screens, which will feature the urban environments in continuous three-minute loop cycles.  
 
“As countries around the world continue to move into a post-GFC economic recovery phase, it’s vital that Australia maximises every opportunity to reinforce the nation’s competitive strengths and standing on the world stage,” recently appointed Venice Biennale commissioner, Janet Holmes à Court, said.?

The Venice Architecture Biennale, now widely regarded as the most important event on the international architecture calendar, is “un-missable”, Holmes à Court said. The 2008 event attracted 130,000 informed visitors from around the globe over 10 weeks and the 2010 Biennale is expected to eclipse this, she said.??

“I have every confidence that the appointment of our 2010 creative director team – led by John Gollings and Ivan Rijavec – affords us a great head-start in the promotion of the nation’s incredibly rich and diverse architectural talent,” Holmes à Court said.
 
The full 2010 creative directors team comprises Australia’s pre-eminent architectural photographer John Gollings, leading Melbourne-based architect Ivan Rijavec, graphic designer David Pidgeon, astrophysicist Professor Jeffrey Shaw, architect and sound designer Nick Murray and 3D experts Sam Slicer and Daniel Flood.
 
A total of 29 submissions were received for the role of creative director, with five proposals shortlisted in a rigorous selection process ahead of today’s announcement of the winning team.
 
The Venice Architecture Biennale was inaugurated in 1980 and is now held every two years, alternating with the Art Biennale. Thousands of the world’s leading architects and city planners plus more than 52,000 people visited the 2008 Australian Pavilion.

Australia’s attendance at the Venice Architecture Biennale is an initiative of the Australian Institute of Architects, which pledged funding for each of three Venice Architecture Biennales – 2006, 2008 and 2010. Fundraising efforts continue to guarantee an ongoing presence in Venice.

Pritzker Prize winner reveals Museum of Nature & Science plans for Dallas

From our friends at ArchitectureNews.com

Thom Mayne has revealed his dramatic design for the new $185 million Perot Museum of Nature and Science at Victory Park in Dallas with groundbreaking due this Autumn. Described as a “living educational tool featuring architecture inspired by nature and science,” the new facility designed by his firm, Morphosis, will provide 180,000 sq ft of display and archive space on a 4.7 acre site just north of downtown Dallas.

“Museums, armatures for collective societal experience and cultural expression, present new ways of interpreting the world,” said Mayne. “They contain knowledge, preserve information and transmit ideas; they stimulate curiousity, raise awareness and create opportunities for exchange. As instruments of education and social change, museums have the potential to shape our understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live.

“The new Perot Museum of Nature & Science in Victory Park will create a distinct identity for the Museum, enhance the institution’s prominence in Dallas and enrich the city’s evolving cultural fabric.”

At 170 ft and 14 stories high the structure presents itself as a cube structure atop a plinth. Working to a theme of ‘nature in an urban fabric’ its roof alone offers one acre of rolling native landscape featuring all the native flora and fauna of Texas and including a large urban plaza for events. Surrounding the building too landscape design, created in conjunction with Dallas-based Talley Associates, brings together science and technology with nature acting as an extension of the building design. The two are so integrated that, to mention one example, the parking lot is used to generate energy to power water features (post-rain).

80% of the building will be open to the public (an unusually high percentage) and facilities will include 10 exhibition galleries, including a children’s museum and outdoor playspace/courtyard; an expansive glass-enclosed lobby and adjacent outdoor terrace with a downtown view; state of the art exhibition gallery designated to host world-class travelling exhibitions; an education wing; large-format, multi-media digital cinema with seating for 300; flexible-space auditorium; public café; retail store; visible exhibit workshops; and offices.

A signature design feature within the museum is a 54-foot continuous-flow escalator contained in a 150-foot tube-like structure that dramatically extends outside the building. It will take visitors from the light-filled lobby atrium to the museum’s top floor. Patrons will arrive at a fully glazed balcony high above the city, with a bird’s-eye view of downtown Dallas.

“We believe the new Museum will provide an unforgettable experience for our visitors and help them better understand and appreciate the world we share,” said Nicole Small, President and CEO at the Museum of Nature & Science, “And our hope is that it will inspire young people – and those of any age – to pursue careers in math, science and technology.”

Charles Gwathmey, Architect of the Modernist School, Is Dead at 71

As the owner of Consulting For Architects, I have had the opportunity and privilege to work with the architecture firm, Gwathmey Siegel from the mid nineties to present as a provider of staffing services.  Mr. Gwathmey’s passing is a loss for his family, friends, firm and the profession and I hope to bring together some of the things others have said about him recently in regards to his passing.

From the New York Times:

Charles Gwathmey, part of a generation of architects who put their own aesthetic stamp on the “high Modernist” style, died on August 3. He was known both for residential work — he built living spaces for Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jerry Seinfeld — and sometimes controversial public buildings.

In the New Yorker Magazine architecture critic Paul Goldberger said:

Postscript: Charles Gwathmey

In 1965, Charles Gwathmey, three years out of the Yale School of Architecture, designed a house and studio for his parents, the artists Rosalie and Robert Gwathmey, on Bluff Road in Amagansett, on eastern Long Island. Gwathmey was twenty-eight, an age when most architects are toiling away in large corporate offices and hoping for the chance to renovate a friend’s kitchen. When Gwathmey’s project, a pair of crisp, sharply angled structures covered in cedar siding, was finished, a year later, it became one of the most influential houses of the decade: a composition of cubes, cylinders, and triangles, it was a study in inventive modernist geometries. It cost somewhere around thirty-five thousand dollars, and it inspired a generation of beach houses in the Hamptons and elsewhere.

Architectural careers generally develop slowly, which made Gwathmey’s particularly unusual, the architectural equivalent of the young writer who comes out of nowhere and produces a brilliant first novel. In some ways, Gwathmey was the architecture world’s Norman Mailer, with the same bravado, the same raw talent, and the same career-long anxiety about whether he could continue to equal his spectacular first performance. Over the years, Gwathmey’s work became more complex than the house and studio in Amagansett, and vastly more elaborate. The cabinetry in any Gwathmey kitchen was certain to cost several times as much as his parents’ entire house.

A few years after the house in Amagansett was finished, Gwathmey and his architectural partner since 1968, Robert Siegel, designed an apartment at the El Dorado, on Central Park West, for Faye Dunaway, and over time they became the architects of choice for clients in the entertainment industry who were sophisticated enough to want something other than an interior decorator’s French Provincial. The firm of Gwathmey Siegel designed modernist houses and apartments for David Geffen, Steven Spielberg, Jerry Seinfeld, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Ron Meyer, and Frank Marshall and Kathleen Kennedy, not to mention grandiose modernist villas for Michael Dell, the computer maker, and Mitchell Rales, a Washington, D.C., industrialist, for whom Gwathmey also designed a private museum, Glenstone.

By the time the large villa that Gwathmey had designed in East Hampton for François de Menil, now owned by Larry Gagosian, was completed, in 1983, it was clear that Gwathmey had become not the avant-garde architect that his early success had promised but something closer to a modernist Stanford White or John Russell Pope. Gwathmey’s modernism, by then, had become not so different from what a Georgian manse was in the nineteen-twenties: a symbol of refinement and sophistication more than of cutting-edge sensibility. Maybe it didn’t matter: after all, his houses were impeccably designed and exquisitely crafted, and his clients were not just any rich people but ones who knew the difference between a Gwathmey house and someone else’s.

Still, Gwathmey hated to be thought conservative, and the unspoken theme of his career was the struggle between his desire to continue to make buildings that were new and different and his passion for a kind of classic modernism, which as time went on seemed ever more to be a part of history. He never copied anything literally, and he couldn’t bear to think of himself as one of those architects who replicate the past. He kept trying, over and over, to find new ways to rearrange the basic geometric shapes he loved so much—he was earnest, almost innocent, in his passion for pure architectural form—and his late work, if not dazzling in the way that his parents’ house was, had a striking richness to it. He tried new surfaces, he tried new materials, he tried new shapes, but there was always the same kind of sleek, crisp formality to his work. If there is such a thing as blunt intricacy, Gwathmey’s architecture has it.

He was at his best at small scale, which made him the opposite of almost every other major architect of our time. He did a few towers, none of which were great, and several institutional buildings, few of which equalled his best houses. (He was almost alone among first-class architects in making houses a central part of his practice, even when he had plenty of bigger, more lucrative projects.) Toward the end of his career, he poured his heart and soul into a non-residential commission he cherished, the restoration and expansion of the Art and Architecture Building at Yale, by his teacher Paul Rudolph. The Rudolph building is an impossibly difficult neo-Brutalist masterpiece from 1963, and Gwathmey made it look better than it has in forty years. His addition is smart and well planned on the inside, and too complex and overwrought on the outside. It tells you all you need to know about its architect, who couldn’t bring himself to sit quietly beside his mentor. Gwathmey paid loving homage to Rudolph in the restoration, and then he wanted to get into the ring with him. I don’t think he was trying to show his teacher up. He just worried about what it would look like if he didn’t assert himself. He never wanted anyone to think that he didn’t have the right stuff.

More from the New York Times:

While in his 20s Mr. Gwathmey became a sensation by building a house for his parents on the East End of Long Island. The house, completed in 1966, was consistently described as one of the most influential buildings of the modern era. Two years later he and Robert Siegel founded Gwathmey Siegel & Associates.

Perhaps the firm’s best known work was its addition to Frank Lloyd Wright’s design of the Guggenheim Museum on the Upper East Side, the rectangular tower beside the building’s famous spiral.

Mr. Gwathmey’s Astor Place condominium tower drew criticism from those who said it was insufficiently deferential to its surroundings.

Mr. Gwathmey in 1976, outside of Whig Hall at Princeton University. His renovation of the building was known as one of his more daring projects.

The Museum of the Moving Image in Astoria, Queens.

Mr. Gwathmey created a proposal for the World Trade Center site, along with Richard Meier, Peter Eisenman and Steven Holl.

Mr. Gwathmey in his apartment in Manhattan.

Via New Yorker Magazine and NYT

The Bijlmer Park Theater in Amsterdam designed by Architect Paul de Ruiter

I came across a critique of this project on the Archicentral Blog, which is a good source of industry news and information.   The building is at once visually pleasing and interesting, but that is just the beginning.  As described in the text below, the architect pushes the envelope in so many meaningful and personal ways, qualifying this build as magnificent in my view.

It’s a long post, but here’s what Archicentral said:

In 2004, Paul de Ruiter was invited to compete in the selection of the architect who would design a cultural building in the southeast district of the city of Amsterdam. This cultural building was to be a multifunctional building for four users; a circus (Circus Elleboog), a theater (Krater Theater), the Youth Theater School and the Theater Workplace, all professional organizations in the field of talent development, cultural education, production and programming.

On the basis of a presentation of his vision, including his proposal to work with a dynamic program of requirements, Paul de Ruiter’s architectural bureau was selected by the city of Amsterdam, southeast district, to design the cultural building.

DYNAMIC PROGRAM OF REQUIREMENTS

How can you ensure that a design process proceeds efficiently, decisively and harmoniously when time is limited, but at the same time you must take into account the divergent requirements and interests of four different users? Paul de Ruiter developed a dynamic program of requirements – a flexible design process with a plan that was not already drawn up in detail.

To identify the specific wishes of all the users and integrate them into the design and to give the users a good idea of the architectural possibilities, several workshops were held during the design stage. During these workshops, plans were made with the users and the customer, and these were later reviewed at regular intervals. This finally yielded a design that satisfied the requirements of all the parties involved.

WORKSHOPS

The design process started with a study of the program for the cultural building. Paul de Ruiter’s architectural bureau built various scale models that gave an indication of the different options for form and layout. With these models on the table, it was possible to hold brainstorming sessions during the workshops on what the building should look like and what functions it needed to fulfill. In view of the location of the cultural building in a park, a recognizable, pavilion-like building was chosen with a layout that could be adapted to the various requirements of the users.

MEETING PLACE

The site of the cultural building is specified in the urban development plan. The building is located in the heart of the Bijlmer neighborhood at the edge of the Bijlmer park, beside the lake. It is public and accessible, and its position beside the water gives extra dynamism to this image due to the reflections in the water. To make it possible for performances to be held on the water as well, for example on large floating platforms, steps that can be used for seating have been placed at the water’s edge. When no performances are scheduled, the steps function as a meeting place, where cultures, generations and artistic disciplines meet each other.

DYNAMICS

The cultural building consists of an ellipse shape, with the upper two floors slightly displaced in relation to the ground floor. This provides a covered entrance area located in a logical position in the urban development plan’s routing.

The elliptical shape of the building did mean that it was necessary to search for a financially viable way of reproducing this rounded shape in the partially glass façade. The solution was found in a combination of wooden slats and vertical aluminum strips placed against the steel and glass sections of the facade. This means that the intersection points of the segmented façade are not visible and the building has a rounded, dynamic and somewhat abstract appearance that changes continually as you walk around it.

RECOGNIZABLE DESIGN

During the day, the striking shape of the cultural building makes it clearly recognizable, while it is conspicuous in the evening because of its color, which can be altered to fit the occasion. This is made possible by the use of LED lighting. A line of light is fitted behind the steal façade in the façade, shining downwards. Because this light shines against the steel façade and the wooden slats, the building acquires an appearance of transparency, as if the light is coming from inside the building. The illumination of the building increases the level of safety and makes the cultural building clearly visible from the urban surroundings.

DAYLIGHT

One requirement that was specifically identified during the workshops was the need for daylight in the main auditorium. Lessons and rehearsals would take place here during the day, and a good level of daylight access is very important for the atmosphere and sense of orientation.

In the theaters that were visited for the workshops, the users often commented on the lack of daylight, which although understandably kept out deliberately for performances, is still very desirable during the day. For this reason, a glass surround was created on the first floor all around the main auditorium. This solution not only allows a maximum capture of light, it also makes it possible for parents and others who may be interested to watch lessons and rehearsals unobtrusively. These windows can be darkened to keep out the light when performances are held.

FLEXIBILITY

During the workshops, the most time, relatively speaking, was spent on identifying the users’ wishes in relation to the main auditorium. Circus Elleboog, for example, needed a space with a clear height of 7 meters for acrobatic, trapeze and juggling acts, while the preference of the other partners was for a theater-style auditorium. A solution was found by designing a rectangular auditorium with two ear-shaped appendages beside the performing area – a circus/theater auditorium with between 162 and 277 seats. These two rounded areas on the long sides of the main auditorium make it possible to use this in a range of circus configurations and theater configurations, by making use of versatile wings and movable seating areas.

MULTIFUNCTIONAL

In addition to the main auditorium, the cultural building has a spacious foyer, rehearsal rooms, three studios, storage rooms, dressing rooms, a sewing room, meeting facilities and offices. The building accommodates the four user groups in the dance class of the Amsterdam School of Arts. For all these users the three stories are arranged. The main auditorium extends to the height of all three stories and one of the studios is two stories high.

On the top story, the bridges for the operation of lighting and set management are integrated into the concrete floor. This is a practical and inexpensive solution that makes the bridges safe and easily accessible.

INSPIRATION

The design process for the cultural building was full of creativity. This was not just due to the unusual approach, but was also and primarily a result of the way the workshops were organized. Each workshop was held in a different, unconventional theater, selected each time by one of the users. During a guided tour preceding the workshop, the architect, users and customers were able to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of that particular theater, and inspiration was gathered for the brainstorming session. This then took place on stage, and on more than one occasion, a performance was given to test the size, functionality and acoustics of the space. There was no question of meeting agendas and minutes; the idea was to give creativity free rein. At most, a list of points was put together at the end of the workshop to act as a basis for the following session. This was an extremely flexible, practically-oriented approach, which resulted in an attractive and multifunctional design.

INTERACTION

As a result of the ample admission of light and the flexible layout, the cultural building offers maximum scope for freedom and creativity. It radiates openness. The building therefore plays an important role in facilitating the development of talent, particularly in children and young people. The regular tenants (Circus Elleboog, the Youth theater school, the theater workplace and Krater Theater) will work together in this building, creating an enormous level of synergy, a melting pot of cultures. A place for debates inspired by the diversity of the southeast district of the city of Amsterdam. To stimulate this interaction even further, the outer wall of the auditorium, most of which runs through the foyer, will be painted with blackboard paint, and chalks will be available everywhere. Visitors, particularly children, will then be free to leave their message, comment or greeting on the wall. The black outer wall of the auditorium also makes the layout of the theater clear and facilitates the feeling of orientation. It is obvious that this is the dynamic heart of the cultural building.

The Bijlmer Park theater is made possible with help from the EU.

Further information and more pictures: www.paulderuiter.nl.