GGW links to a WaPo story and slideshow unveiling the six starchitect proposals for the new National Museum of African American History and Culture.
I hate them all. Every single one of them ignores the context of the National Mall and pretends to be a lone sculptural statement. Every single one would make the Mall harder to appreciate as a formal whole.
Devrouax: Derivative of the National Gallery East Wing, only boring. Almost a total lack of human-scale details. | |
Diller: Slick CAD rendering, but what would this even look like in real life? An utterly incomprehensible and ridiculous proposal. | |
Foster: A suburban bunker invisible from the street. Totally the wrong building for the context. | |
Freelon: Didn’t society already collectively agree that brutalism sucks? | |
Moody: A good design if this were a museum about mining located somewhere in the mountains. A giant stone slab facing the street is not good urbanism. It’s not interesting either. | |
Moshe: Probably the least offensive of the lot, but will someone explain to me why glass curtain walls and wavy Gehry lines are taken seriously as “progressive”. |
See the WaPo slideshow for larger images
The National Mall is not a sculpture garden writ large. It is a formal “outdoor room” to be framed by buildings that collectively add to a whole greater than the sum of their parts. It’s an embarrassment to the architecture profession that the so-called best and brightest are so constrained by the dogma of modernism that not one of six teams even tried to present a context-sensitive design. Will a real architect – one interested in designing buildings for a city rather than a lone hilltop – please stand up?
March 30th, 2009 | Permalink
Tags: architecture