3 ms·

Are contemporary architects disliking his work a sort of counter culture sort of way (because he is everywhere)? What are fundamental complaints against his wor

Are contemporary architects disliking his work a sort of counter culture sort of way (because he is everywhere)? What are fundamental complaints against his work? Did Frank Gehry advance architecture in a way that people are standing on top of his work (figuratively speaking)?

ethbro 6y ago
There are generally two types of architects: white collar and blue collar. White collar architects are artists, and spend their time designing. Then they hand their sketches to structural engineers and say "Figure out how to build this." These are generally the folks architecture magazines write about. Blue collar architects are more engineers and tradespeople, and see success as a building that fits the purposes of the client, in budget, in a pleasing way. They're more likely to repurpose a historical form, if it's well suited for the request at hand. One of the central features of architecture meta is that white collars think blue collars lack creativity and intelligence, and blue collars think white collars are pompous pricks.
- omosubi 6y ago
  Who do blue collar type architects look to for inspiration or guidance?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- saeranv 6y ago
  I guess I disagree with this assessment. There are many famous architects who are famous precisely for the criteria you listed as 'blue collar' here: Peter Zumthor, Herzog & de Meuron, Rafael Moneo, Alvaro Siza. They tend to work from the construction of the building up, they repurpose historical buildings. They are also massively famous, teach at prestigious universities and write a lot of books (Zumthor excepted, although he is likely the most popular of all of these guys). The 'white collar' type you mention here seems to resemble Gehry the most, but as I've detailed in another comment is not considered a great architect.
saeranv 6y ago
There's many reasons why he isn't considered a good architect: - Notoriously bad detailing (see the lawsuit associated with the Ray and Maria Stata Center at MIT). Precise detailing is a reflection of an architect's craftmanship, and something a lot of architects take a lot of pride in. - No theoretical or functional underpinning to his work, it's literally just a large sculpture. Architects who do incorporate sculptural form (Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas, Alvaro Alto, Oscar Niemeyer, Preston Scott Cohen etc) are a lot more rigorous about how and why they deploy this strategy. - A related criticism: little to no translation of his sculptural forms to the interior. If you cut a section through his building you'll see that the building contains a lot of empty, useless space at the corners, and then a lot of typical boxy rooms inside. Again look at someone like Koolhaas, Cohen or Zaha to see how efficiently and effectively they integrate their geometric experimentation. - The most impressive part of his projects: the structural calculations, construction and implementation of his work was achieved by others at Gehry Technologies, a technology spin-off that he's basically outsourced all the difficult/interesting parts of his project to. If you look at architects who do structurally experimental work (Santiago Calatrava, Antoni Gaudi), they're actually integrating their analytical work with the design. Gehry himself has said he's more of an artist then an architect. I will say though, that one of my favorite architects (Rafael Moneo) once wrote a pretty good defense of Gehry's work in his book 'Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects', albeit focusing mainly on his use of material. ETA: Oh god. Reading the hacker news crowd confidently opine about architecture is excruciating. There just seems to be a huge gap between what people think architects do, and what the discipline actually does.

ethbro 6y ago

There are generally two types of architects: white collar and blue collar. White collar architects are artists, and spend their time designing. Then they hand their sketches to structural engineers and say "Figure out how to build this." These are generally the folks architecture magazines write about. Blue collar architects are more engineers and tradespeople, and see success as a building that fits the purposes of the client, in budget, in a pleasing way. They're more likely to repurpose a historical form, if it's well suited for the request at hand. One of the central features of architecture meta is that white collars think blue collars lack creativity and intelligence, and blue collars think white collars are pompous pricks.

omosubi 6y ago
Who do blue collar type architects look to for inspiration or guidance?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
saeranv 6y ago
I guess I disagree with this assessment. There are many famous architects who are famous precisely for the criteria you listed as 'blue collar' here: Peter Zumthor, Herzog & de Meuron, Rafael Moneo, Alvaro Siza. They tend to work from the construction of the building up, they repurpose historical buildings. They are also massively famous, teach at prestigious universities and write a lot of books (Zumthor excepted, although he is likely the most popular of all of these guys). The 'white collar' type you mention here seems to resemble Gehry the most, but as I've detailed in another comment is not considered a great architect.

saeranv 6y ago

There's many reasons why he isn't considered a good architect: - Notoriously bad detailing (see the lawsuit associated with the Ray and Maria Stata Center at MIT). Precise detailing is a reflection of an architect's craftmanship, and something a lot of architects take a lot of pride in. - No theoretical or functional underpinning to his work, it's literally just a large sculpture. Architects who do incorporate sculptural form (Zaha Hadid, Rem Koolhaas, Alvaro Alto, Oscar Niemeyer, Preston Scott Cohen etc) are a lot more rigorous about how and why they deploy this strategy. - A related criticism: little to no translation of his sculptural forms to the interior. If you cut a section through his building you'll see that the building contains a lot of empty, useless space at the corners, and then a lot of typical boxy rooms inside. Again look at someone like Koolhaas, Cohen or Zaha to see how efficiently and effectively they integrate their geometric experimentation. - The most impressive part of his projects: the structural calculations, construction and implementation of his work was achieved by others at Gehry Technologies, a technology spin-off that he's basically outsourced all the difficult/interesting parts of his project to. If you look at architects who do structurally experimental work (Santiago Calatrava, Antoni Gaudi), they're actually integrating their analytical work with the design. Gehry himself has said he's more of an artist then an architect. I will say though, that one of my favorite architects (Rafael Moneo) once wrote a pretty good defense of Gehry's work in his book 'Theoretical Anxiety and Design Strategies in the Work of Eight Contemporary Architects', albeit focusing mainly on his use of material. ETA: Oh god. Reading the hacker news crowd confidently opine about architecture is excruciating. There just seems to be a huge gap between what people think architects do, and what the discipline actually does.