Gehry Glitter in this weeks Pitch

supastudio · Post by **supastudio** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 5:23 am

I just read this article this morning:

Gehry Glitter
Why go for a world-class arena when you can get homespun sameness?
BY DAVID MARTIN

http://www.pitch.com/issues/2004-07-29/stline.html

And I totally agree with this exerpt from the article:

And even though HOK is still capable of terrific designs -- PNC Park in Pittsburgh and SBC Park in San Francisco are considered gems -- its buildings do not make dramatic statements the way Frank Gehry's do. The curving glass, titanium and limestone of the Guggenheim in Bilbao turned a derelict port city into a tourist destination... "Kansas City deserves a Frank Gehry," Proebstle says.

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:17 am

I really don't care where the design firm is based, I want a good design. Gehry's designs are themsevles becoming standard, with swooping metal skins. We don't need a design that looks like the balboa museum, or the L.A. concert hall. We need a design that says Kansas City. We'd be foolish to choose Gehry because of his name, just as we'd be foolish to choose the hometown arena design team just because they are home town. We need to pick the BEST DESIGN.

Post by **chrizow** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:39 am

we do need to pick the best DESIGN and not the biggest name, but from what i have seen Gehry is the only person likely to give us something fresh and iconic.

his pedestrian bridge and band shell/pavillion up in chicago are freakin' great and are already hailed as classic additions to the chicago architecture scene.

while it's true that the twisted metal skins are Gehry's trademark, i dont think they have become cliche. he has only done a few of these buildings. that's like saying that Picasso's Cubist paintings got "old" after he did 6 or 7 of them.

but just based on portfolio alone, i would take Gehry's 14th twisted metal building over HOK/whomever's 200th staid grey/glass box.

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:41 am

I'd like to see them present the designs to the public, without saying which team designed what, and then choose what we like.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 12:05 pm

Frank Gehry shouldn't ever design this, this should be a PURELY Kansas City design, not a Gehry design. He doesn't know Kansas City and therefore, he shouldn't design the arena. Besides, he won't design it anyway. The Dream Team is going to design it, for one, 2 or 3 of the firms are already designing the whole Power & Light District. Plus, the Dream Team is more experienced in sports architecture.

Fight Frank Gehry, keep him from designing something that needs to be a Uniquely Kansas City building. NO Frank Gehry!!!

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 12:39 pm

get a grip devin. why do you want to pick a designer rather than a design?

Post by **chrizow** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 2:01 pm

The Crawford guys fashion themselves the Apple to the Downtown Area Design Team's Microsoft. They suggest that HOK and Ellerbe Becket, the largest sports-architecture firms in the world, have become plodding bureaucracies, churning out unoriginal designs.

"You have all this talent, but it's gotten stagnant," Murphy says. He and Proebstle worked at Ellerbe Becket before leaving for Crawford in 2001.

Murphy is not the first to suggest that the leading sports-architecture firms may have hit a creative wall. Elements of the retro baseball stadium -- brick facings, painted steel, asymmetrical outfields -- are fast becoming clichÃ©s. "Who knows? Maybe these will be the cookie-cutter stadiums of their day," Hall of Famer Mike Schmidt said to the Associated Press after the HOK-designed Citizens Bank Park opened this spring in Philadelphia.

this is more indicative of the point of the article than the single pro-HOK paragraph supastudio cited.

WoodDraw · Post by **WoodDraw** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 5:34 pm

Both the "Dream Team" and Crawford/Gehry have done great work and some pretty average stuff IMO. I personally don't like a blinding pile of metal anymore than I like a bland, grey box. Let's just wait until the designs are released and then pick the best one.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:14 pm

I think instead of choosing one before they design it, they should have them design it, then choose which one, like the WTC, only, making the right choice.

I would compare what Gehry would built to the Freedom Tower, and what the dream team would built to Foster's design. Foster's paid better tribute to the victims and the towers, and slapped the terrorists in the face. The Freedom Tower only appears to represent the victims and doesn't represent the towers.

Besides, do you want an inexperienced architect, who has only designed things that are his own design or do you want a team of VERY experienced local architects who know what represent's Kansas City best to design it?

I don't want this crap in our city:

It is unique to Kansas City, but not to the world and it isn't uniquely Kansas City.

Also, do you see my point? Everything he has designed has looked the same, we will already have 2 buildings in our skyline that look like that, the PAC and the Ballet. We DON'T need a third.

supastudio · Post by **supastudio** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:41 pm

Also, do you see my point? Everything he has designed has looked the same, we will already have 2 buildings in our skyline that look like that, the PAC and the Ballet. We DON'T need a third.

Just to be fair, here are other Frank Gehry Designs.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:45 pm

I know, what I meant was the majority, but I said everything. Still, we don't need that crap here.

We don't need one building to define our entire city like St. Louis. We should have many buildings defining our city, like San Francisco with the Golden Gate Bridge and Transamerica Pyramid, or New York City with the Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, and NY Life Building. Or Chicago with the Sears Tower and Hancock Tower. We don't really need very tall buildings, but we need more than one building showing off our city.

Also, all of those designs that you have shown, are built or will be built in Kansas City. Our largest structure downtown should be unique compared to everything else, it shouldn't mirror the PAC or Ballet, or anything else.

supastudio · Post by **supastudio** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:51 pm

KCDevin wrote: Also, all of those designs that you have shown, are built or will be built in Kansas City. Our largest structure downtown should be unique compared to everything else, it shouldn't mirror the PAC or Ballet, or anything else.

I'm confused with this line... None of the buildings above are near KC. the first two are in LA, the third in Prague, the fourth one is MIT.

WoodDraw · Post by **WoodDraw** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 8:55 pm

KCDevin wrote:We don't need one building to define our entire city like St. Louis. We should have many buildings defining our city, like San Francisco with the Golden Gate Bridge and Transamerica Pyramid, or New York City with the Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, and NY Life Building. Or Chicago with the Sears Tower and Hancock Tower. We don't really need very tall buildings, but we need more than one building showing off our city.

Uhm, ok. Who said a Gehry arena would define our entire city? As you said, it would just be another building showing off KC. Like I said above, the best design should be the one that gets picked.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:36 pm

supastudio, read what I said, I said those DESIGNS are or will be built in our city, especially in the urban core.

WoodDraw · Post by **WoodDraw** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:52 pm

KCDevin wrote:supastudio, read what I said, I said those DESIGNS are or will be built in our city, especially in the urban core.

I'm still confused. Am I missing something or am I just dense?

Beltonhawk · Post by **Beltonhawk** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:57 pm

For those who didn't see the Gehry design for the Brooklyn arena, here it is....

Not saying I like the design, but it shows that he can make something that's not aluminum or way offbeat. I'm sure he has the skillset to design something for the people of KC.

(Bigger pics at www.bball.net)

And I agree....the local guys will be feeling the pressure to get a good design done. Pick the best design. That's all that matters to me.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:02 pm

that building won't stick out as much as our arena will. That arena IMO is a typical one. Besides the trees.

Just because your name is big doesn't mean you can do a better job than local people or people who design those things every day.

Like Frank Lloyd Wright only designed two built highrises, but they were only about 12 floors. And he designed one mega skyscraper but it wasn't very good looking. However he was the king of architecture otherwise.

My point is, even if your the best architect of one sort of structure, it doesn't mean you'll do a good job in others. Like that arena isn't architecturally pleasing.

Beltonhawk · Post by **Beltonhawk** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:06 pm

Exactly...if his design is best, pick it. If it's not, don't.

supastudio · Post by **supastudio** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:22 pm

WoodDraw wrote:
KCDevin wrote:supastudio, read what I said, I said those DESIGNS are or will be built in our city, especially in the urban core.
I'm still confused. Am I missing something or am I just dense?

Sorry I'm still confused, KCDevin said,"Also, all of those designs that you (supastudio) have shown, are built or will be built in Kansas City. Our largest structure downtown should be unique compared to everything else, it shouldn't mirror the PAC or Ballet, or anything else." None of the designs I have shown are in KC.

KCDevin · Post by **KCDevin** » Thu Jul 29, 2004 10:26 pm

Supastudio, I didn't say they have to exist yet.
I suppose you haven't seen all of the projects i've seen.

I also suppose your for Frank Gehry huh? If you are then forget it, he isn't getting the design. Also, the other designs you showed wouldn't fit an arena, so are irrellivant.