Jump to content
AVB-AMG

Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again – Draft Trump Executive Order

Recommended Posts

A draft of an executive order titled “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again” is moving forward towards possible signing by President Donald J. Trump. The proposed document favors Classical Greco-Roman design typologies for federal buildings in Washington, DC and elsewhere throughout the USA. It was initiated by the National Civic Art Society, a Washington, DC based nonprofit. This order would revise the current rules that regulate the design of federal buildings contracted through the General Services Administration (GSA).  The GSA is a Federal agency managing the construction, administration, and upkeep of US Government buildings and real estate.

The draft executive order would require rewriting the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture, issued in 1962, to ensure that 'the classical architectural style shall be the preferred and default style' for new and upgraded federal buildings." Not surprisingly, the order is titled: “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again”.  Any project seeking an exemption from the mandate would need to be approved from a presidential “re-beautification” committee, (i.e. the architecture police).  The order seeks to undo the widely admired GSA’s Design Excellence Program, which is a peer review system for selecting qualified architects for federal projects and sometimes uses design competitions as part of this process.  This program also utilizes so-called Peer Reviews, where other architects and contractors are brought in to critique the evolving early design, providing useful suggestions, along with the realities of construction. (Note: I have had professional project work experience with the GSA and this program).

This is an attempt to create an official style of architecture dictated by Donald Trump and some of his supporters.  It seems to have been proposed by some populists who feel resentment towards educated elites and want to impose their views on architectural design on everyone else, (sound familiar…?).  Whether or not you are a supporter of President Trump, this action is likely to provoke a much-needed debate about the mandating of style. I do not believe that architects should be restricted in this way and by doing so would be a real disservice to the American public.

As an American living in the 21st century and having come of age in the second half of the 20th century, I have my various preferred architectural styles that have evolved over time, that appeal to me for different functions and locations.  I think that is true for most of us.  As both an undergraduate and graduate student, going on to become a licensed Architect, I have been educated in and have extensive work experience with the history of art and architecture, as well as the fields of M.E.P. engineering, lighting, landscaping, along with the ever-evolving progress of alternative energy sources, and design for sustainability, human comfort and accessibility.  I do not have one favorite architectural style.  I believe that architects (and engineers), whether individually or collectively as a team, provide a much-needed service of bringing their creative inspiration to a project to accommodate the client’s cost budget, programmatic needs and stated preferences, while also taking into account the specific project site, neighboring buildings, and applicable zoning and building codes.  Usually, the most challenging requirement is staying within the client’s budget.  Naturally, most folks want features, materials, FF&E that they really cannot afford, so part of the process is showing and educating the client(s) what they can afford and ensuring that they understand that the equation is always between Size, Quality, & Price, with time (schedule) being affected as well.

BTW, the draft executive order that I read is using the term "classical" without any capitalization, because it is being used as a catchall term for a grab bag of traditional styles, including Romanesque, Gothic, and Spanish Colonial. It does not refer specifically to Classical architecture - the architecture of ancient Greece and Rome - but basically to anything old and maybe with columns.  It is very general and probably would be up for interpretation by the silly style committee/architectural police that Trump wants to create. The National Trust for Historic Preservation, of which I am a member, issued a statement in support of the current federal standards and stated: “We strongly oppose an effort to impose a narrow set of styles for future federal projects based on the architectural tastes of few individuals.”  For those of you(us), who still believe in States-rights, do we really want the federal government to impose aesthetic restrictions on what is built?  Buildings, like all people, should be regarded and assessed individually, based on whether or not they are successful in their function and context.

In an attempt to be objective, I agree that some architects have often sought to impose their own preferred style — a variant of modernism or neo-modernism, on some federal building projects. While I do not care for most examples of the Brutalist and De-Constructivist styles that were popular in the 1960’s through the 1980’s, most architects have now moved on from those styles.

I think it is important to note that so-called “Modernism”, encompasses a broad array of styles, including: the Craftsman and Prairie Styles, the International Style, Art Deco, Streamline Moderne, Futurism, Postmodernism, Minimalism, and plenty of other unique creations that defy classification as a "style."

Let’s not forget that many people admire the legendary American architect Frank Lloyd Wright and his brilliant architectural designs which remain enduringly popular.  Wright’s work evolved over his long prolific career and encompassed several different styles.  They range from the low, broad Craftsman lines of his early Prairie Style homes, to the ornamented concrete blocks of the Ennis House, to the daring cantilevers of Fallingwater house, to the spiraling curves of the Guggenheim Museum.  Would we want to stifle a creative genius architect like Wright from conceiving a design for a federal building because of some federal mandate to only use the classical design style?

For the design of federal buildings, I believe that most of the architects who are ultimately selected by the GSA have the creative talent to conceive and deliver beautiful, enduring, sustainable habitats for all interest groups, including: the client (GSA), the people who work in and visit the building, as well as the general public who views the building.

Sure, I agree that some buildings in the Modern architectural style are truly ugly, yet also some are notably beautiful ones that contribute to the architectural interest and diversity of their cities.  Let me provide two examples from one of the architectural firms that I worked for in New York City:  Kohn Pedersen Fox (KPF).  Both are U.S Federal Courthouses, where the client was the GSA and were designed under the Design Excellence Program.  As you can see from the links to their photos and descriptions, they are very different in style, based on the requirements at that time, along with site constraints, while serving the same programmatic function:

1.     Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse – New York, NY

https://www.kpf.com/search?q=+Daniel+Patrick+Moynihan+United+States+Courthouse#daniel-patrick-moynihan-united-states-courthouse-foley-square

2.     Robert H. Jackson United States Courthouse – Buffalo, NY
https://www.kpf.com/projects/united-states-federal-courthouse-buffalo

I believe that these two building examples, one using classical design motifs and the other using more Modern ones, but for very similar program functions, illustrate how architects, using their creative inspiration, can design buildings that are both aesthetically pleasing in different architectural styles, while also meeting the federal client’s program and budget requirements, under the current GSA Design Excellence Program.  Therefore, I do not believe that any executive order is necessary, nor desirable, to limit the design approach to future federal buildings to the classical style(s).

FYI, for a very good overview on the evolutionary history of the GSA’s Design Excellence Program here is a very interesting and informative video on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKYPMSSHCdQ

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohhh, AVB-AMG! I've been following this topic for weeks now... and almost posted on it, but I thought your head was probably already exploding so why add to the mess? ;)

I realize that many architects are shocked (shocked, I tell you!) by these proposed guidelines, but I think they make a lot of sense. You (and others in your occupation) tend to merrily skip right past the key points. For instance, this blithe assertion: 

3 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

In an attempt to be objective, I agree that some architects have often sought to impose their own preferred style — a variant of modernism or neo-modernism, on some federal building projects. While I do not care for most examples of the Brutalist and De-Constructivist styles that were popular in the 1960’s through the 1980’s, most architects have now moved on from those styles.

Well, gosh! Isn't that a generous admission! Harrumph!! The fact is... that when an architect leaves a monument to his own ego that ONLY other architects appreciate, it doesn't help when the field "moves on from those styles". The building remains and it is The People who have to look upon that ugly building for decades to come and who are left with its soul-sucking ugliness tainting their daily lives and adding blight to their view. More is the shame when it's a Federal building - particularly of a government designed to be For The People!!

Also, why does it offend you so that non-architects might be called upon to pass their judgement on an architectural design, particularly when it's for a building designed to serve that very same pool - ordinary people who aren't all architects?  Not only do I think the guidelines are a great idea (and still leave tremendous room for creativity) but I think the idea of a committee review by non-architects is a FABULOUS idea!! In fact, it's a stroke of bloody genius! As one who used to live and work in the DC area, let me say - I used to marvel at that city's gorgeous classical buildings... and despair at some of it's ugliest non-classical ones placed in unfortunate juxtaposition. NEVER AGAIN should any federal building be as ugly as the FBI Headquarters!! The first time I laid eyes upon it, I literally thought: "The person who designed that monstrosity should be hung... or at least, never allowed to design a building again." I can assure you, a panel of ordinary Americans with even a modicum of taste would NEVER have allowed that hulking monstrosity to pass through a design review! I would have more confidence in them than a "'peer review" by other architects, I'm sorry to say.

If our readers want perspective, here's a couple of other resources, the first a podcast, the 2nd an article:

https://www.city-journal.org/why-classical-architecture-matters

https://www.city-journal.org/america-needs-classical-architecture - and this article makes a great point - why shouldn't any client (including the US Gov't) be able to set the parameters of their own building's design? Isn't the client always right?

I think US Federal buildings should be immediately recognizable as such - for people of various cultures, language abilities, etc. The very look of them should say:  this represents the U.S., its government and its people. They should evoke grandeur, symmetry and be awe-inspiring. In modern terms, it's a "branding" issue! We've had far too many awful design "misses" in decades past - and we're now STUCK with them!! Anything we can do to avoid the same mistakes is a good thing in my book! There's plenty of non-Federal projects in the country for those who want to chart a course for something uber-unique. (And btw, when a one-of-a-kind building runs into construction problems, as unique buildings so often do, at least it won't be us taxpayers picking up the tab for costly overruns and rehab work on a building that everyone except it's own Dr. Frankenstein simply hates).

Power to the people, AVB!! And the people love classically-designed buildings. 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brisco said:

Seriously, Who came up with the design for the San Francisco federal building and what drugs were they on?

It is cold, discordant, foreboding... it is not generally liked by locals or even employees (according to numerous articles)... and in perhaps the ultimate test, the neighborhoods immediately around it have only declined and degraded over time, so it has not helped to elevate the area either (which is something that great architecture can and should do!)  It's another one of those modern disasters that only the self-congratulatory architectural community seems to like. Utterly ridiculous. 

And btw, I'm not a hater of all modern architecture either. From Frank Lloyd Wright's many designs, to the designs of Frank Gehry (check out the Guggenheim in Bilbao, Spain if you're not familiar with his work), to the fabulous Sydney Opera House which has become an icon for that city - there's a lot of modern design that I really admire.  But, Federal dollars (taxpayer dollars) have too often been used to design and build UGLY hulking buildings that PEOPLE never grow to love and that do not stand "the test of time". That's gone on for far too long. 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Handyman said:

Architects are a bunch of priggish dilettantes.

I actually worked on a 6-month contract (as a recruiter) at an architecture and engineering firm at one point. They were very well-known in the Science & Technology sector - they designed Lvl 4 biohazard containment labs all over the world for various governments, and also designed laboratories and vivariums for universities, big pharma, etc. I had worked for engineering firms before... this was my first experience in an architecture firm. It was certainly different! Most of the architects I liked very much... but there was a "diva" aspect for sure that I observed in some of them. There was one guy in particular - if someone criticized his designs - he would hurl his plans - or whatever was in his hands - across the room, stomp out in a huff, etc. Cray-cray! I thought it was particularly inappropriate since those types of buildings (as far as I'm concerned) are actually more heavily weighted towards the engineering expertise than the architectural talent. I mean, practically speaking, no one in Atlanta is really going to care if the new CDC lab in the 'hood is "pretty" or "inspiring"... if Ebola gets loose, for instance. Priorities! I don't know why they put up with his hysterics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2020 at 3:34 PM, Mrs. Peel said:

Ohhh, AVB-AMG! I've been following this topic for weeks now... and almost posted on it, but I thought your head was probably already exploding so why add to the mess? ;)

Also, why does it offend you so that non-architects might be called upon to pass their judgement on an architectural design, particularly when it's for a building designed to serve that very same pool - ordinary people who aren't all architects?  Not only do I think the guidelines are a great idea (and still leave tremendous room for creativity) but I think the idea of a committee review by non-architects is a FABULOUS idea!! In fact, it's a stroke of bloody genius! As one who used to live and work in the DC area, let me say - I used to marvel at that city's gorgeous classical buildings... and despair at some of it's ugliest non-classical ones placed in unfortunate juxtaposition. NEVER AGAIN should any federal building be as ugly as the FBI Headquarters!! The first time I laid eyes upon it, I literally thought: "The person who designed that monstrosity should be hung... or at least, never allowed to design a building again." I can assure you, a panel of ordinary Americans with even a modicum of taste would NEVER have allowed that hulking monstrosity to pass through a design review! I would have more confidence in them than a "'peer review" by other architects, I'm sorry to say.

I think US Federal buildings should be immediately recognizable as such - for people of various cultures, language abilities, etc. The very look of them should say:  this represents the U.S., its government and its people. They should evoke grandeur, symmetry and be awe-inspiring. In modern terms, it's a "branding" issue! We've had far too many awful design "misses" in decades past - and we're now STUCK with them!! Anything we can do to avoid the same mistakes is a good thing in my book! 

Power to the people, AVB!! And the people love classically-designed buildings. 

 

On 3/2/2020 at 6:11 PM, Mrs. Peel said:

But, Federal dollars (taxpayer dollars) have too often been used to design and build UGLY hulking buildings that PEOPLE never grow to love and that do not stand "the test of time". That's gone on for far too long. 

@Mrs. Peel:

FYI, my head has not exploded, (yet...), thank you.  I think that by later this week, we all will have a much better idea of the lay of the land and where we are headed....:icon_rolleyes:
So, it appears that you have undertaken the total transformation of becoming a populist…:icon_e_wink:
Did you even take the time to check out the links to the two Federal Courthouses or the YouTube video on the GSA’s Design Excellence Program, that were in my original post….? 

I think that you prefer classical architecture because you are comfortable with it and the tradition(s) you associate with it.  There is nothing wrong with that, but not everyone would agree with you.  Do not misunderstand me, I very much appreciate the humanistic proportions and elements of Classical architecture, as well as many fine examples of neo-classical architectural designed buildings in the U.S, both public and private.  Also, I believe in preserving our country’s historical buildings that have architectural merit.  But more importantly, I am all for architects to be able to choose elements of the classical architectural vocabulary in new, creative ways, but should not be required to limit themselves to just that language.  That would be like painting with only one color.  Federal buildings should NOT be branded in a way that they all look alike.  They are not a fast-food McDonald’s restaurant.  There is no one right design that fits all……. 

FWIW, I do not care for the design of either the San Francisco Federal Building, (designed in 2002-2003), nor the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah, (designed in 2001-2012).  While they both have some redeeming qualities, the overall exterior architectural image and statement leaves me cold.  FYI, not all of us architects are in lockstep when it comes to our aesthetic preferences.

It is very easy for all of us to pass judgement on examples of architecture that were designed 40-70 years ago and we have every right to do so.  But try to consider what the influences were at that point in time.  Most architecture is a result of and a reflection of the fashion influences at that time, some good and some not so much.  I think that we can agree that good/successful architectural design will stand the test of time and only some distance in time from when a building was designed and constructed, allows us to recognize that.  Some people prefer to just look at the past to decide what they like, whereas others want to take what has worked in the past and if possible, attempt to improve upon it.  The most interesting and successful architectural building designs are results of architects who combine their historical knowledge of styles, understanding the nature of materials and structures, proven construction methods, while adding their own inspired creative ideas to solve the challenge of the variables of program function, site, cost budget and schedule, (not to mention their client’s stated preferences).  Not all architects produce designs that most of the public considers successful, but to impose stylistic guidelines that would be arbitrated by a political appointed committee, is absurd and could become borderline fascist.

Therefore, I am sure that you will not be surprised that I adamantly disagree with your proposed solution of a “committee review of non-architects”, since it just does not really work. I have had the interesting experience of presenting, explaining and discussing architectural schematic designs to public neighborhood groups and listening to their questions and suggested opinions.  Aside from answering appropriate questions, there were always some legitimate concerns expressed and always many opinions shared of how they would design the building.  This is a valid process that has been established over a long period of time, where it has been realized and accepted that in order for it to work coherently, everyone has a voice, but not everyone has a vote.  Architectural design in not a democratic process.

What you are essentially advocating for is “Design by committee”, where the public is much more involved in contributing their personal opinions and preferences.  Where this has been attempted, it has almost always resulted in chaos, no clear consensus for a unifying plan or vision, leaving everyone disgruntled and dissatisfied and disillusioned.  There is a reason for the old proverb: “too many cooks spoil the broth….” and it is also true for the architectural design of buildings, whether for private or public clients.  Keep in mind that all Federally funded building projects have multiple people who serve as the “client”. They include a team from the GSA, as well as representatives of the new building's user groups.  Therefore, the architect, as the leader of the design team that includes MEP engineers and various specialty consultants, is not designing in a vacuum.  

Let me leave you with these…..

AVB-AMG

image.png.1ad279825cec897d8f7863ad445a6610.png

image.png.0724e9569382760d62efafe0ad37a6d9.png

image.png.e081ec83431f6cf2c960c9f15d267632.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I actually worked on a 6-month contract (as a recruiter) at an architecture and engineering firm at one point.

There's a big difference between those professions. Engineers are grounded in reality and make things actually happen. Architects, by and large, are a bunch of artistic fruitcakes. They create problems for others (namely, engineers) to solve.

In these respects, engineers are very much like republicans and architects are like democrats.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely no reason to pay exorbitant amounts of money to people to design public buildings... especially designs that are fads, or not even attractive to the general public. 

Classic designs are just that... they have withstood the opinions of time as visually appealing and do not produce a view of how old or new the building is... 

 

When people build houses, most often today they look for styles that are "timeless", much like these classic styles that people generally always enjoy. 

 

AVB is just mad because his profession isnt getting billions of dollars to create garbage on the tax payer dime..

 

I dont need my government to look like "modern art".

  • Like 2
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It wasn’t always like this. For the first 150 years of the republic, the executive order reads, “America’s Federal architecture produced beautiful and beloved buildings.”  The traditional buildings of our capital city, “built to endure for centuries, have become an important part of our civic life.”

And in 1901, the Department  of the Treasury, which then oversaw federal architecture, issued an order that required classical architecture “for all [government] buildings as far as it was practicable to do so,” adding that, “The experience of centuries has demonstrated that no form of architecture is so pleasing to the great mass of mankind as the classic, or some modified form of the classic.”

But then in 1962, it was all undone by the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture, an order that enshrined the new architectural elite’s belief that it is they who rule the people and their government. “The development of an official style must be avoided,” it decrees, undoing Pierre L’Enfant’s careful plan for Washington. “Design must flow from the architectural profession to the government, and not vice versa.”

Since that day, architects, untethered from the responsibility of designing buildings that the people like to see, live in and work in, have relentlessly force-fed the public ugliness. Shall we take a tour?

The full article here with examples of several fugly federal boondoggles. --> https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/07/behind-the-white-house-move-to-stop-ugly-federal-buildings-and-the-architects-who-stand-in-the-way/

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since were on the topic.. 

 

If some idiots are buying bananas taped to a wall as "modern art" for hundreds of thousands of dollars.. then I believe Trump has a very good point to prevent such nonsense from wasting tax dollars. 

So why should the tax payers be the "idiots" to pay for this "art" 

And the fed building in SF

 

'The construction budget and cost for the building was $144 million.[9] The architect's decision to eliminate the usual HVAC system saved $11 million in construction costs.[11] At the same time, the design's nonfunctional use of extended, folded metal sunshading at ground level, which in the opinion of some are purely for aesthetic effect, and require extensive galvanized steel bracing, added millions in materials and fabrication costs back into the project.[9] 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

Did you even take the time to check out the links to the two Federal Courthouses or the YouTube video on the GSA’s Design Excellence Program, that were in my original post….? 

I think that you prefer classical architecture because you are comfortable with it and the tradition(s) you associate with it.  There is nothing wrong with that, but not everyone would agree with you.  Do not misunderstand me, I very much appreciate the humanistic proportions and elements of Classical architecture, as well as many fine examples of neo-classical architectural designed buildings in the U.S, both public and private.  Also, I believe in preserving our country’s historical buildings that have architectural merit.  But more importantly, I am all for architects to be able to choose elements of the classical architectural vocabulary in new, creative ways, but should not be required to limit themselves to just that language.  That would be like painting with only one color.  Federal buildings should NOT be branded in a way that they all look alike.  They are not a fast-food McDonald’s restaurant.  There is no one right design that fits all……. 

To answer your question, I looked at your attachments and here's some feedback... of the 2 Federal courthouses shown, I actually very much appreciate the Moynihan courthouse. First, I looked up a satellite view and realized the architect had limited available land on which to build... and therefore probably needed a skyscraper-type building. Honestly? Even though it's a far more modern structure (obviously) than the historic buildings around it, the windows echo the shape of the windows on the historic buildings nearby and the raised vertical sections in between the windows hint at Classical columns as well. I think it is actually a tasteful addition to the general area - and not at all jarring. I also like those curved elements on the roof - I don't know if this was intentional or not - but to me, it's the inverse of the dome that you so often see on courthouses. All in all, very well done IMHO. And, when I spoke of "branding" - I certainly wasn't talking about McDonald's for goodness sakes! Give me some credit! And if you read MY post... you would note that though I like classical architecture, I like a lot of modern architecture as well.

The other building? No! It's a perfectly fine building on it's own - would have been great as a corporate office, etc., but I think it's terrible as a Federal building... because it's exterior telegraphs no "hint" of what is inside. Again, this is a country of immigrants across all of its generations. Not everyone speaks the language - a newcomer with an appointment at the Federal building, trying to get across town (dealing with signs not in their native language, etc.), would never approach this building from a block away and think, "Ah... that must be it." And I think that should  be the case... not cookie-cutter, mind you, but a bit of a distinctive look.

And you don't have to tell me about committees - I do get that! As a freelance writer, I spend my work life dealing with multiple parties all editing my work at the same time, and often with dueling ideas. But, you know what? That's my job!! Dealing with multiple clients, incorporating ideas where possible, pushing back gently if I think they're moving in a bad direction, and soothing any ruffled feathers is part of what I get paid for. An architect's role, in that respect, is no different! If architects don't want to be constrained by this proposed guidance should it get adopted, they should go work for the plentiful number of firms that design non-Federal buildings. Easy-peasy. Remember, the point of these guidelines is to protect the public (the taxpayer)… NOT to protect the egos of the architects. I think that's as it should be!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AVB-AMG I'm not posting to disagree with you.  I have some knowledge of architecture  but bow out graciously to your expertise.

However, I do have an opinion of what looks like it should look like.  The Guggenheim in NY looks like an art museum.  I like the way it looks almost as much as The Cloisters which is light years different in appearance.  I enjoy seeing these buildings as much as I like seeing what's inside them.

Ive probably been in more Federal buildings and courthouses than most people.  One only has to go to Newark and look at the Post Office (a classic Federal building) and across the street at the Rodino building.  The Rodino building has all the charisma of a quonset hut.

Do not despair though.  A short walk east down Walnut Street will take you to the Martin Luther King Courthouse which looks like a courthouse.  Columns in front and a spacious lobby.

If you do go to see this stop at Ward Coffee on Broad St. for an amazing selection of coffee, tea, nuts, and sweets.  It's been there 100 years or so.

The Federal Courthouse in Brooklyn (Eastern District of New York) looks more like a commercial office building where the focus is on having as much rentable space as possible.  Compare that to the Federal Courthouse in Manhattan that looks like a courthouse.

 A bit off topic but along the same lines were the "Welcome to the USA" signs that were designed by Peter Max.  These sat in storage for a few years and in use a few years.  Their appearance was garish.  Another waste of taxpayer's money "for the arts" IMO.

You can read about them here,

https://www.cbp.gov/about/history/did-you-know/peter-max

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Handyman said:

There's a big difference between those professions. Engineers are grounded in reality and make things actually happen. Architects, by and large, are a bunch of artistic fruitcakes. They create problems for others (namely, engineers) to solve.

In these respects, engineers are very much like republicans and architects are like democrats.

@Handyman:

In another thread, I explained in far more detail, the sequence of the design process for most large-scale commercial building projects, whether they are for a public or private client.  I remember you commented on it and indicated that you found it to be informative, so why the regression here?

I have to take issue with your statement that it is only the engineers who are grounded in reality, while agreeing that in many cases, the architects do intentionally create design problems that require some creative engineering solutions, which is not a bad thing.

Now I have a feeling that your glib post above is just your usual form of exaggeration in an attempt at humor, sometimes funny and others, not so much.  The reality of the design process is that it is a collaborative one.  While the architect(s) may come up with the initial design concept, they will hire a team of mechanical, electrical and structural engineers to join the project team, along with a number of specialty consultants, (i.e. lighting, landscaping, food service, zoning, etc....).  In my experience, the most enjoyable collaborations with engineers has been when we attempt to do something a bit different and they see it as a challenge on how to resolve it.  I believe that engineers, and building contractors for that matter, are as creative as the architects in this design and construction process.  We all understand that the formal education we received in school was just the beginning of the long learning process and that it takes many years of design and the construction of those designs to realize what ideas really work the best and what should be avoided, learning from both successes and failures.  The gray hair factor in the A/E/C industry provides that wisdom based on that experience gained over the years and many projects.

I certainly have appreciated the sage counsel and sounding board that the various engineers have provided to me and the entire design team, based on their knowledge of building materials, tolerances, durability, environmental concerns, etc.  I have always encouraged and have been grateful for their advice, and creative solutions, including suggesting various options to achieve the desired geometric massing, span length, and the ultimate architectural aesthetic goal.  The best engineers don’t say “you can’t do that”, they say “let me work on it and get back to you”. 

I have much admiration for quite a number of distinguished engineers, going back to historical figures including Leonardo da Vinci, as well as Nikola Tesla, Thomas Edison, Gottlieb Daimler, Louis Roebling, Gustave Eiffel.  There have been some very famous modern-day structural engineers who have left their memorable mark on the built environment, including Frei Otto, Pier Luigi Nervi, Fazlur Kahn, Santiago Calatrava, just to name a few. FYI - I have had the pleasure of working on projects with Bill Baker, the structural engineer at SOM who designed the high-rise steel structure of the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest man-made building in Dubai.

BTW, almost all of the engineers I know and have worked with are politically independent or are Democrats….

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, GRIZ said:

@AVB-AMG I'm not posting to disagree with you.  I have some knowledge of architecture  but bow out graciously to your expertise.

However, I do have an opinion of what looks like it should look like.  The Guggenheim in NY looks like an art museum.  I like the way it looks almost as much as The Cloisters which is light years different in appearance.  I enjoy seeing these buildings as much as I like seeing what's inside them.

Ive probably been in more Federal buildings and courthouses than most people.  One only has to go to Newark and look at the Post Office (a classic Federal building) and across the street at the Rodino building.  The Rodino building has all the charisma of a quonset hut.

Do not despair though.  A short walk east down Walnut Street will take you to the Martin Luther King Courthouse which looks like a courthouse.  Columns in front and a spacious lobby.

If you do go to see this stop at Ward Coffee on Broad St. for an amazing selection of coffee, tea, nuts, and sweets.  It's been there 100 years or so.

The Federal Courthouse in Brooklyn (Eastern District of New York) looks more like a commercial office building where the focus is on having as much rentable space as possible.  Compare that to the Federal Courthouse in Manhattan that looks like a courthouse.

@GRIZ:

I find it interesting that you mention that you feel that the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum “looks like an art museum”.  Back in the early 1940’s when Frank Lloyd Wright’s final building design was presented publicly, there was much shock and criticism by the general public that it did NOT look like a museum.  (Thank you for helping to illustrate my point on the acceptance of current architectural designs for Federal Courthouses…..).   FYI, prior to designing the Guggenheim Museum, FLW designed the Mercedes-Benz automobile showroom on Park Avenue, (now demolished), which featured a much shorter, curved spiral ramp on which the automobiles were displayed.

FLW wanted his museum to stand out and apart from the neighboring rectilinear masonry residential apartment buildings that lined Fifth Avenue and were built up to the sidewalk property line.  That is also why he insisted that the exterior stucco finish be painted an off-white color, to further differentiate it from the colors of the natural limestone, granite and brick masonry buildings to the north, south and east of the museum. His massing concept for an inverted cylindrical ziggurat with a spiral ramp around an open atrium was quite unique at that time. 

Personally, I do not think that his Guggenheim museum works all that well for the public to view traditional two-dimensional artwork of framed paintings or photographs hung on the walls.  I find it rather disconcerting to view this type of artwork while walking down the spiral ramp and standing on a slopping surface.  IMHO, the two most successful art exhibits I have seen at the Guggenheim museum were these:

1. Back in the mid-1960’s when I was a child, seeing the massive free-floating metal mobiles created by the artist Alexander Calder, where the mobiles were suspended from the roof skylight over the rotunda and afforded different perspective views of the mobiles from different angles and daylight exposures. 

2. The second one, and my favorite, was the 1998 exhibition called: “The Art of the Motorcycle”, designed by the architect Frank Gehry, where 114 historically important motorcycles were positioned on the spiral ramp around the curved rotunda.  While a static display, the image was very appropriately, one of dynamic motion.  The effect was heightened by Gehry’s placing mirrors all along the outside of the knee wall of the spiral walkway, facing into the atrium and reflecting images of the motorcycles, as this photo illustrates:

AVB-AMG

image.png.17a7e480fdb539d4cbd8c0a6fc5ac0e9.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say regarding this thread:

I am impressed by  AVB-AMG and the lovely Mrs Peel!

I can discuss surgical implanting of amniotic tissue in surgical procedures, but it would be of little interest in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

@GRIZ:

I find it interesting that you mention that you feel that the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum “looks like an art museum”.  Back in the early 1940’s when Frank Lloyd Wright’s final building design was presented publicly, there was much shock and criticism by the general public that it did NOT look like a museum.  (Thank you for helping to illustrate my point on the acceptance of current architectural designs for Federal Courthouses…..).   FYI, prior to designing the Guggenheim Museum, FLW designed the Mercedes-Benz automobile showroom on Park Avenue, (now demolished), which featured a much shorter, curved spiral ramp on which the automobiles were displayed.

FLW wanted his museum to stand out and apart from the neighboring rectilinear masonry residential apartment buildings that lined Fifth Avenue and were built up the sidewalk property line.  That is also why he insisted that the exterior stucco finish be painted an off white color, to further differentiate it from the natural limestone, granite and brick masonry buildings to the north, south and east of the museum. His massing concept for an inverted cylindrical ziggurat with a spiral ramp around an open atrium was quite unique at that time. 

Personally, I do not think that his Guggenheim museum works all that well for the public to view traditional two-dimensional artwork of framed paintings or photographs hung on the walls.  I find it rather disconcerting to view this type of artwork while walking down the spiral ramp and standing on a slopping surface.  IMHO, the two most successful art exhibits I have seen at the Guggenheim museum were these:
1. Back in the mid-1960’s when I was a child, seeing the massive free-floating metal mobiles created by the artist Alexander Calder, where the mobiles were suspended from the roof skylight over the rotunda and afforded different perspective views of the mobiles from different angles and daylight exposures. 

2. The second one and my favorite, was the 1998 exhibition called: “The Art of the Motorcycle”, designed by the architect Frank Gehry, where 114 historically important motorcycles were positioned on the spiral ramp around the curved rotunda.  While a static display, the image was a very appropriately one of dynamic motion.  The effect was heightened by Gehry’s placing mirrors all along the outside of the knee wall of the spiral walkway, facing into the atrium and reflecting the motorcycles, as this photo illustrates:

AVB-AMG

image.png.17a7e480fdb539d4cbd8c0a6fc5ac0e9.png

 

I like the spiral ramp and the "coffee can" design with no interior support.  

I remember "The Art of the Motorcycle".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

I like the spiral ramp and the "coffee can" design with no interior support.  

I remember "The Art of the Motorcycle".

Like so many of FLW's buildings, this one also had/has numerous roof leaks......

AVB-AMG

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Downtownv said:

I have to say regarding this thread:

I am impressed by  AVB-AMG and the lovely Mrs Peel!

I can discuss surgical implanting of amniotic tissue in surgical procedures, but it would be of little interest in this forum.

@Downtownv:

Thank you.  I appreciate your kind compliment, as I am sure Mrs. Peel does as well.
We all have our artistic and aesthetic biases and preferences on this subjective topic.

I think you should start a new thread on the surgical implantation of amniotic tissue.
My "brief" posts put some folks to sleep here and maybe yours will help me get to sleep and not be such a night owl.... :rolleyes:

AVB-AMG

6 minutes ago, Handyman said:

I'd wager that most of the folks you hang with are democrats, without regard to profession. 

@Handyman

You would be very surprised....  
BTW, I "hang out" with all of you crazy right-wingers here on NJGF.....
AVB-AMG

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Handyman said:

I'd wager that most of the folks you hang with are democrats, without regard to profession. 

You should get outside more...

@GRIZ and @AVB-AMG have met numerous times,,, hell I left @DirtyDigz in the middle of them at a bar. Talk about a deer in headlights....

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

@GRIZ:

I find it interesting that you mention that you feel that the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum “looks like an art museum”.  Back in the early 1940’s when Frank Lloyd Wright’s final building design was presented publicly, there was much shock and criticism by the general public that it did NOT look like a museum.  (Thank you for helping to illustrate my point on the acceptance of current architectural designs for Federal Courthouses…..).   FYI, prior to designing the Guggenheim Museum, FLW designed the Mercedes-Benz automobile showroom on Park Avenue, (now demolished), which featured a much shorter, curved spiral ramp on which the automobiles were displayed.

FLW wanted his museum to stand out and apart from the neighboring rectilinear masonry residential apartment buildings that lined Fifth Avenue and were built up the sidewalk property line.  That is also why he insisted that the exterior stucco finish be painted an off white color, to further differentiate it from the natural limestone, granite and brick masonry buildings to the north, south and east of the museum. His massing concept for an inverted cylindrical ziggurat with a spiral ramp around an open atrium was quite unique at that time. 

Personally, I do not think that his Guggenheim museum works all that well for the public to view traditional two-dimensional artwork of framed paintings or photographs hung on the walls.  I find it rather disconcerting to view this type of artwork while walking down the spiral ramp and standing on a slopping surface.  IMHO, the two most successful art exhibits I have seen at the Guggenheim museum were these:
1. Back in the mid-1960’s when I was a child, seeing the massive free-floating metal mobiles created by the artist Alexander Calder, where the mobiles were suspended from the roof skylight over the rotunda and afforded different perspective views of the mobiles from different angles and daylight exposures. 

2. The second one and my favorite, was the 1998 exhibition called: “The Art of the Motorcycle”, designed by the architect Frank Gehry, where 114 historically important motorcycles were positioned on the spiral ramp around the curved rotunda.  While a static display, the image was a very appropriately one of dynamic motion.  The effect was heightened by Gehry’s placing mirrors all along the outside of the knee wall of the spiral walkway, facing into the atrium and reflecting the motorcycles, as this photo illustrates:

AVB-AMG

image.png.17a7e480fdb539d4cbd8c0a6fc5ac0e9.png

 

The FLW exhibit that they had in there a few years ago was awesome.

 

The art of the motorcycle installation in the Venetian years ago was pretty rad.  Gehry designed that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

@Downtownv:

Thank you.  I appreciate your kind compliment, as I am sure Mrs. Peel does as well.
We all have our artistic and aesthetic biases and preferences on this subjective topic.

I think you should start a new thread on the surgical implantation of amniotic tissue.
My "brief" posts put some folks to sleep here and maybe yours will help me get to sleep and not be such a night owl.... :rolleyes:

AVB-AMG

 

I;m not sure many would have the stomach for that conversation here, But umbilical cord tissue is 1000 times nor powerful in terms of regenerative tissue vs amniotic tissue. Sleep tight.

 

Trump Laughing.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...