Nelson-Atkins Expansion (YES..white glass is the end result)

MC86 · Post by **MC86** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 8:14 am

paisstat wrote:There is no way the siding-like material is staying. It is obvious from those photos that it is temporary and will be removed. Look at how it is tacked on the side of the building and the chalky looking, blue material, which looks like a chalk line or something. I don't think we have anything about which to worry.

People, I don't know what else to say. This is the finished product. Read scooterj's last post, it is right on.

rxlexi · Post by **rxlexi** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:24 pm

I'll have to state again that my own personal verdict remains out until nearer to the completion of this building, but even the supporters here have to admit that it's hilarious how people are in pure disbelief about this being the final look - i.e. "wait a second that just CAN'T be permanent, no way, that sure would be funny though. Wait, it is actually is? (mixture of laughter and tears)"....The outcome remains to be seen, but it's great drama.

On a side note, will there be any way to enter the buillding from the exterior, or will the entrance be exclusively from the parking garage/Nelson building?

Post by **chrizow** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 12:26 pm

the only thing keeping me from condemning the project is Holl himself. that man's portfolio is nothing less than stellar. i can't believe he would permit this project to turn out poorly, especially since the project is a flagship project for his firm - one that he talks about all the time and emphasizes on his website.

furthermore, the "renderings" never really appeared to be single pieces of glass. only the aerial shot did. if you look at Holl's site, the drawings are of thin panels like the ones being built, although the rendering makes them look more transparent. i hope they'll turn out to be clear like the renderings on the site.

MC86 · Post by **MC86** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:05 pm

chrizow wrote:the only thing keeping me from condemning the project is Holl himself. that man's portfolio is nothing less than stellar. i can't believe he would permit this project to turn out poorly, especially since the project is a flagship project for his firm - one that he talks about all the time and emphasizes on his website.

furthermore, the "renderings" never really appeared to be single pieces of glass. only the aerial shot did. if you look at Holl's site, the drawings are of thin panels like the ones being built, although the rendering makes them look more transparent. i hope they'll turn out to be clear like the renderings on the site.

the rendering is also a picture at night. when the building is lit up, it will appear more transparent.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Fri Feb 11, 2005 1:22 pm

Ha, I see Grid of KCP altered the title of this thread

Gladstoner · Post by **Gladstoner** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:39 am

It does glow at night even with the construction lights inside.

One thing's for sure. Any project of this caliber that looks awful in the contruction stage will have the entire city talking about it. If it looked pretty now, this thread would be far shorter.

moderne · Post by **moderne** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:26 pm

Wouldn't it be funny if the project everybodys complaining about before earth is turned(the Fed Reserve) turns out to be the better than the one nobody criticized till it went up(the Nelson)!

Maitre D · Post by **Maitre D** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 7:33 pm

Butler Building.

Nothing could describe it better.

MC86 · Post by **MC86** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 10:54 pm

pittsburghparoyal wrote:Butler Building.

Nothing could describe it better.

hello, have we met?

--page 2 of this thread

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 1:45 pm

the pres of the Nelson was on the Walt Bodine show today, addressing some of the concerns that have been raised. He said that Steven Holl will talk at Unity Temple about the building sometime in March...

Anyway... The guest talked about the design and what the goal is. Very informative and well done. (now some of the call in folks were a bit odd, but hey, its talk radio). He also talked about how the glass looks different at different times of the day, in various lighting conditions, at at different angles. So I drive by, take my time and looks, and he's right. Sometimes the glass looked blue, sometimes white, sometimes brown. A clould passed by, and still a different look. I like it a lot! I suggest people check it out at different times of the day, at different angles, both driving and walking.

I like this addition more and more. They also talked about how other famous buildings were hated when they were finished, only to be later recognized at true gems. This building, I think, will be the same. Its going to be a great structure when completed, a valuable addition to Kansas City's great buildings.

Long · Post by **Long** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:55 am

Some people probably will like the Fed Reserve better, because it is safe and doesn't challenge them to think about the way they experience a building.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 8:20 am

Long wrote:Some people probably will like the Fed Reserve better, because it is safe and doesn't challenge them to think about the way they experience a building.

WoodDraw · Post by **WoodDraw** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 4:52 pm

People are criticizing it right now because it looks like shit, not because they aren't up for this "challenge". Hopefully the final product is great but if it looks like a frosted shed with metal strips across it then I'm not going to praise it simply for being different.

ignatius · Post by **ignatius** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:03 pm

I agree. How about drumming up an analysis about the new ugly utilitarian building at Linwood/Main with the awkard green wall. The Nelson expansion is no more 'challenging' than this building but I imagine some could talk others into appreciating it. It is unfortunate that because this expansion is so bad, the best that the proponents could do is attempt to convince others it is 'amazing'.

I am looking forward to the interior and ability for more of the Nelson collection to be displayed. But this could have been done equally as well if the expansion were undergroud. Instead, we have shack looking buildings that clash awfully with the orginal Nelson.

I say we cover the whole damn thing with dirt mounds.

tat2kc · Post by **tat2kc** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:45 pm

wow. anyone who thinks this is going to look like a cheap shed needs to have their visual acuity checked. If you'e really interested in the process, go see Steven Holl when he talks at Unity Temple.

ignatius · Post by **ignatius** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:51 pm

That's pretty much the point some of are making. If the artists has to explain his art...

ComandanteCero · Post by **ComandanteCero** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:09 pm

i think it's going to be alright. I had my doubts like everyone else, but after going out there one night walking around the old building and the expansion, and taking a moment to just stand there and contemplate the shapes and the contrasts created by both buildings i'm of the mind that it will actually be really really cool. As tat says, everyone should go out there and just look at things and get a sense for the shapes and the masses of both buildings and how they play off each other (and what effect having this building lit up will have on that relationship). Instead of saying "it looks like ____" go out there and figure out ways to describe it for what it is, instead of trying to immediately relate it to other things ( i find that helps me get perspective on architecture in general). once you can appreciate the building for what it is, you can then go on to relate it to other things.

Just keep your minds open, although i agree there's nothing wrong with being critical, since it does look underwhelming on first glance.

KCN · Post by **KCN** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:13 pm

WoodDraw wrote:People are criticizing it right now because it looks like shit, not because they aren't up for this "challenge". Hopefully the final product is great but if it looks like a frosted shed with metal strips across it then I'm not going to praise it simply for being different.

That's pretty much how I feel, even though I'm holding back my official opinion until Ive seen it in person and more importantly for when the final product is finished. Plus we have no idea what the interior will be.

But there is challenging art, then there is art that brings criticism because it sucks. I could go take a dump on a popsicle stick and tell people that don't like it that it's too challenging for them.

trailerkid · Post by **trailerkid** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 7:24 pm

This project is the stupidest thing to worry about...why don't we concentrate on things that actually matter to making the metro better instead of worrying about the design of an expansion that will ensure the Nelson's stature as a premiere art musuem in the United States? Why aren't people complaining about the IRS complex or the Fed which, no doubt, will look worse than this. Move on...

Long · Post by **Long** » Sun Mar 06, 2005 11:30 pm

ComandanteCero wrote:i think it's going to be alright. I had my doubts like everyone else, but after going out there one night walking around the old building and the expansion, and taking a moment to just stand there and contemplate the shapes and the contrasts created by both buildings i'm of the mind that it will actually be really really cool. As tat says, everyone should go out there and just look at things and get a sense for the shapes and the masses of both buildings and how they play off each other (and what effect having this building lit up will have on that relationship). Instead of saying "it looks like ____" go out there and figure out ways to describe it for what it is, instead of trying to immediately relate it to other things ( i find that helps me get perspective on architecture in general). once you can appreciate the building for what it is, you can then go on to relate it to other things.

Just keep your minds open, although i agree there's nothing wrong with being critical, since it does look underwhelming on first glance.

You could not be more right-on.

Yes, an artist does have to explain his art if it is something people aren't able (or willing) to understand. I challenge all of you that think this building is crap to go and listen, with an open mind.

I was out there today looking around, and I'm more excited about this project than ever. With the glass on the first lens complete, the project is really starting to take shape. Honestly, I was concerned about the "massiveness" of the first lens before, but now that it is covered in glass and none of the dark heavy steel is exposed, it almost disappears next to the original building and the new reflecting pool and plaza. They also have the glass on the second lens, the one that you would see directly to the east from the bottom of the south stair. Again, when it was a steel frame, I thought it looked really bad, but now that it is covered in glass, it looks like another sculpture on the lawn.

I think having a building like this in Kansas City is just as important as the rebuilding of downtown. People need to recognize architecture as an artform, that we should be willing to take chances, that we should accept and learn new ways of interpreting and interacting with a building. As long as we continue to believe the best architecture was done in the past, that doesn't give me much hope for the future of our society as a whole.

I wonder what people would have thought if Tadao Ando were selected to build his massive concrete box on the north side of the Nelson.