Quote:
I see. It just seems like a huge waste of money to build what is just a big lobby. Really, I think it could qualify as a folly. Looks great, sure.
Quote:
Those photos look good to me. I also like what I've seen of Brasilia.
I think a lot of what you said could apply to the New York Guggenheim, and I like that a lot as well.
I'll tell you what I don't like (and what this museum looks better than), Daniel Libeskind.
I think a lot of what you said could apply to the New York Guggenheim, and I like that a lot as well.
I'll tell you what I don't like (and what this museum looks better than), Daniel Libeskind.
I think the GMNYC is on a different level entirely; a true masterpiece. The Gwathmey-Siegel addition makes it even stronger, in a way.
Which Libeskind do you mean? The "paper" Libeskind? Some interesting stuff, but lost in a lot of rhetoric.
The "built" Libeskind? I think he's very uneven (mainly un) in built works. The Jewish Museum in Berlin is a great building (his first built, I think his best); the Denver Art Museum is OK; some smaller projects are interesting; the urban stuff is...just bad.
The "Freedom Tower" Libeskind? Bad idea to begin with, but really that was just 'Danny give us a cool image and then step out of the damned way while a bunch of NYC hood architects kick your ass'...one can't really blame him for that fiasco.
Libeskind is not in my top 50 (or 100 even) favorite architects, but I'll take at least several of his works over the Soumaya. Interesting comparison you make, though: many of Libeskind's buildings and the Soumaya are essentially rhetorical, unresolved, failed gestures, imo. As such, maybe the Soumaya will be Mexico City's Wexner Center.... both
.










